GFX 100 vs a7RIV landscape IQ Locked

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Rick Knepper
Rick Knepper Forum Pro • Posts: 17,648
Re: Backslide..... 😂

Greg7579 wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

…. I allowed myself to backslide to FF.

Rick, you are a teller of truth and are a wise sage of what is true and good.

You almost went GFX 100, but decided on the great alphasevenarefour. That is understandable, especially in your case where you want some serious reach and action shots.

But it is also a backslide. 😎

It's all a bit fuzzy now, but at the time of the GFX 100 release, my first trip of 2019 was upon me. I was not on the first wave and my next photo trip was 2 1/2 months away so I felt good about canceling and surely Fuji would be caught up by July. I could get the camera and test it out, decide on whether or not to keep it before that July trip. In June, I became aware of the upcoming A7rIV release & the Sony 200-600 release. It was the 200-600 that sealed the backslide for me. This kit was essentially half the price of the GFX 100 so it felt like it could be a decent stocking stuffer.

Now, I am holding off until the GFX 100 (& the 50mm) get into the rebate program.

-- hide signature --

Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

 Rick Knepper's gear list:Rick Knepper's gear list
Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS R Fujifilm GFX 50S Sony a7R IV Pentax smc D FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL (IF) SDM AW +10 more
adegroot Veteran Member • Posts: 3,041
Re: Backslide..... 😂

Bottom: iPhone 7+, part of a larger image, set at 300ppi

Top: AI Gigapixel, upscaled to 600ppi, and then scaled down again to the original 300ppi size.

Apparently not exactly the same part of a wall, but you get some idea of what AI Gigapixel does.

 adegroot's gear list:adegroot's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp0 Quattro Sigma SD15 +13 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,392
Re: Philosophy 101

Good post Teila...

-- 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
adegroot Veteran Member • Posts: 3,041
RE: AI Gigapixel

here's one more:

again, only a part of the original image shown. If you can guess where this is, kudos to you !

 adegroot's gear list:adegroot's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp0 Quattro Sigma SD15 +13 more
rbf Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Backslide..... 😂

adegroot wrote:

Bottom: iPhone 7+, part of a larger image, set at 300ppi

Top: AI Gigapixel, upscaled to 600ppi, and then scaled down again to the original 300ppi size.

Apparently not exactly the same part of a wall, but you get some idea of what AI Gigapixel does.

GigaPixel AI is pretty awesome!

Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,392
Re: No reasonable workflow and environmentally bad

Joohan wrote:

You might be right that you can get sharper images with film but the hassle makes it impractical and all the chemicals and even animal products involved makes it a poor choice for our future. That little advantage cannot be justified.

I started to flag this for politics but decided to let it slide.  But come on Joohan, this is a photography equipment discussion board not a politics board or place for expressing various common forms of environmental activism.  Photographers here are allowed to talk about working with film without worry of being lectured to by someone with a political view that may or may not align with his or her own views about what is best for the Planet.

-- 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
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,739
Re: Backslide..... 😂

Hi,

I don't know. Seems to be pretty extensive sharpening to me.

But, I think I will do some tests...

But, just to say, I have all the pixels I need, so uprezzing tools are no great interest for me.

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

rbf Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Backslide..... 😂

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Hi,

I don't know. Seems to be pretty extensive sharpening to me.

But, I think I will do some tests...

But, just to say, I have all the pixels I need, so uprezzing tools are no great interest for me.

Best regards

Erik

I'm trying it out on some old photos that I snapped many years ago on low MP point and shoots digital cameras and liking it so far. There were some that I came to regret using such small camera on. I'm interested in what it might be able to do for old smart phone captures as well. You do have to careful with it though it turned an image I scanned from a slide my Dad took on my first birthday into a 612MB jpg! 

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,986
Re: Relevance (reiterated.. slowly)

Macro guy wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

You are assuming that what you're seeing are differences in sensor size.

I'm not assuming. I'm basing my assertion on what I commonly notice between shooting MF and FF across the brands. Process thousands of files of both and the difference is pretty easily noticeable. I don't think anyone who's processed thousands of files of MF (CMOS) and compared them to processing their FF raw files cannot tell a difference.

You could be seeing the differences in lenses or the differences in sensor tech or implementation or a combination of the above. In other words, you really don't know what you're looking at, or rather the causes of whatever differences you're seeing.

Lenses? I can take a old-as-dirt 400mm or 120mm lens from the film days and get the same general result that I'm talking about- especially when it comes to resolution / pixels which is a primary reason for shooting MF for many photographers manipulating raw files whether the output be intended for screen or print.

Slap whatever lens you have on the Canon 5Ds series - do the same for the Pentax or same vintage Hasselblad and you get the same basic result irrespective of lenses used. What that means to me is that the lenses aren't the cause of the slightly-cooked difference in the Canon's raw files that I was seeing back then. Switch cameras (same models), same thing.

Now since I can't buy a 5dsr, 645z or Hasselblad without whatever electronic seasoning that comes from the factory, in layman's terms, that means that the 5ds/r didn't perform the same as the 33x44 based MF offerings. Better or worse is up to the photographer, but my bet is that it's hard to find an owner of both to attest that they can't tell a difference, ** especially ** after shooting MF for months, then going back to the same era FF Canon/Nikon.

Ok, so you don't like the Canon sensor. That's fine, but would that sensor have been any better scaled up to 33x44? Would the Sony sensor have been any worse scaled down to 24x36? (aside from the resolution differences of course)

I don't know or even suppose either way because I can't purchase "what if".. I can only buy what exists.

In that vein - 50mp doesn't look like 24mp just like 150mp doesn't look like 50mp, especially when shooting small subjects, cooking the file in your favorite processor, a bit of cropping, then sending to output.. the practical advantages are pretty obvious.

Today the difference between 50mp MF and a 65mp FF camera isn't worth quibbling about in most cases.. and I think it goes without saying that most photographers worried about practical advantages and a bottom line won't shell out tens of thousands in gear unless the difference is a decisive one; not one predicated on emotion.

We have a great opportunity to actually compare the same sensor in the Sony A7R4 and in the Fuji GFX100. As Jim's test have shown, aside from the obvious resolution difference that comes from having a bigger sensor, both cameras are on par with regard to IQ. And that brings me to the point that I've been trying to make all along and that is that the ONLY advantage that 33x44 has over 24x36 format is greater resolution at a given pixel pitch.

That's a very noticeable advantage for people who purchase for readily visible practical differences and or notable processing advantages. The problem with 33x44 today is that it doesn't make remotely as much sense as it did half a decade ago (which is expected), except for those wanting a leaf shutter option (HSS, etc., doesn't compare when it comes to the versatility of a leaf shutter lens).

Today the 44x33 sensor doesn't make sense in most cases. Again, it made a lot of sense years ago and I haven't wavered from my assessment.  ** Buying 44x33 today is like buying a small truck to tow a yacht.  Today we have the equiv. of people looking at the 44x33 sensor and voicing disappointment when compared to FF... but that's like someone trying to tow a Yacht with a Ford Ranger truck.   Whilst a truck is needed and would be ideal, one can't seriously use the wrong truck (or MF camera in this case) for the job or for comparisons.  The point of buying MF is for decisive differences I would say for most photographers buying the camera as a tool to help them make money in order to eat or pay a mortgage.

Resolution is the largest draw for many photographers when it comes to buying MF.

I think 150mp is the only option today that really makes sense; it's just a let down that Phase is basically the only option right now for those wanting a lot of resolution / pixels.

I sold a BW shot taken at 51k ISO, and several series at 12k ISO... don't think I could've done the former, or that to my liking in the case of the latter, with the 5Ds series.

You're absolutely right. The 5DS doesn't go above ISO 6400

My point exactly- if you wanted a camera that offered unrivaled image quality, and or leaf lenses, 50mp or greater, excellent high iso performance, etc., 5 years ago-- MF was your only option. There was no rival at that time. Today is different for MF using the 44x33 sensor.

I would advise many if not most people today looking at MF, to simply wait.

100mp crammed onto the 44x33 sensor... I hope Fuji gives buyers to option to purchase a larger sensor in the future.

-- hide signature --

Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,739
Re: Relevance (reiterated.. slowly)

Teila Day wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

You are assuming that what you're seeing are differences in sensor size.

I'm not assuming. I'm basing my assertion on what I commonly notice between shooting MF and FF across the brands. Process thousands of files of both and the difference is pretty easily noticeable. I don't think anyone who's processed thousands of files of MF (CMOS) and compared them to processing their FF raw files cannot tell a difference.

You could be seeing the differences in lenses or the differences in sensor tech or implementation or a combination of the above. In other words, you really don't know what you're looking at, or rather the causes of whatever differences you're seeing.

Lenses? I can take a old-as-dirt 400mm or 120mm lens from the film days and get the same general result that I'm talking about- especially when it comes to resolution / pixels which is a primary reason for shooting MF for many photographers manipulating raw files whether the output be intended for screen or print.

Slap whatever lens you have on the Canon 5Ds series - do the same for the Pentax or same vintage Hasselblad and you get the same basic result irrespective of lenses used. What that means to me is that the lenses aren't the cause of the slightly-cooked difference in the Canon's raw files that I was seeing back then. Switch cameras (same models), same thing.

Now since I can't buy a 5dsr, 645z or Hasselblad without whatever electronic seasoning that comes from the factory, in layman's terms, that means that the 5ds/r didn't perform the same as the 33x44 based MF offerings. Better or worse is up to the photographer, but my bet is that it's hard to find an owner of both to attest that they can't tell a difference, ** especially ** after shooting MF for months, then going back to the same era FF Canon/Nikon.

Ok, so you don't like the Canon sensor. That's fine, but would that sensor have been any better scaled up to 33x44? Would the Sony sensor have been any worse scaled down to 24x36? (aside from the resolution differences of course)

I don't know or even suppose either way because I can't purchase "what if".. I can only buy what exists.

It is a good point. Regarding Sony sensors I would say that the sensor technology in the GFX 100 and the Sony A7rIV is essentially the same. But it is entirely possible that say Fuji does a better job of using the sensor

In that vein - 50mp doesn't look like 24mp just like 150mp doesn't look like 50mp, especially when shooting small subjects, cooking the file in your favorite processor, a bit of cropping, then sending to output.. the practical advantages are pretty obvious.

Today the difference between 50mp MF and a 65mp FF camera isn't worth quibbling about in most cases.. and I think it goes without saying that most photographers worried about practical advantages and a bottom line won't shell out tens of thousands in gear unless the difference is a decisive one; not one predicated on emotion.

We have a great opportunity to actually compare the same sensor in the Sony A7R4 and in the Fuji GFX100. As Jim's test have shown, aside from the obvious resolution difference that comes from having a bigger sensor, both cameras are on par with regard to IQ. And that brings me to the point that I've been trying to make all along and that is that the ONLY advantage that 33x44 has over 24x36 format is greater resolution at a given pixel pitch.

That's a very noticeable advantage for people who purchase for readily visible practical differences and or notable processing advantages. The problem with 33x44 today is that it doesn't make remotely as much sense as it did half a decade ago (which is expected), except for those wanting a leaf shutter option (HSS, etc., doesn't compare when it comes to the versatility of a leaf shutter lens).

Personally I don't really care about sensor size at all. What I think is important that it is adequate for the task at hand.

If you need 100 MP, I would think that a 100 MP 44x33 sensor may be as good as a 100 MP 54x41 mm sensor. The larger sensor may have other advantages, of course.

Interesting thing you mention leaf shutter, I think it matters. I would also say that it is noticeable even shooting macro outdoors with the Hasselblad 555/ELD and electronic flash.

Today the 44x33 sensor doesn't make sense in most cases. Again, it made a lot of sense years ago and I haven't wavered from my assessment.

Resolution is the largest draw for many photographers when it comes to buying MF.

I think 150mp is the only option today that really makes sense; it's just a let down that Phase is basically the only option right now for those wanting a lot of resolution / pixels.

I sold a BW shot taken at 51k ISO, and several series at 12k ISO... don't think I could've done the former, or that to my liking in the case of the latter, with the 5Ds series.

You're absolutely right. The 5DS doesn't go above ISO 6400

My point exactly- if you wanted a camera that offered unrivaled image quality, and or leaf lenses, 50mp or greater, excellent high iso performance, etc., 5 years ago-- MF was your only option. There was no rival at that time. Today is different for MF using the 44x33 sensor.

I would advise many if not most people today looking at MF, to simply wait.

100mp crammed onto the 44x33 sensor... I hope Fuji gives buyers to option to purchase a larger sensor in the future.

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: 8,392
👎👎👎

Teila Day wrote

I would advise many if not most people today looking at MF, to simply wait.

100mp crammed onto the 44x33 sensor...

Teila,

Why do you write a smiley face after making that damning statement on the MF Board?

You and Macro have a lot in common on your FF is = or > than GFX MF.

I do not agree with your advice that people who are interested in MF just "wait."

Fuji does not agree.  Nor do I.  If I had thought that I doubt if I would have dropped ten grand on the GFX 100 body and would instead have bought the alphasevenarefour.

The 26 people who have piped in so far on this Board who just bought the GFX 100 are fools.

They should have followed your advice and listened to Macro and not made that bad decision.  They should have "waited."

I don't think the 100 MP was "crammed" onto the new sensor.  Were pixels "crammed" onto the Sony alpghasevenarefour?

I'm adding your quotes to my long list of anti-MF talking points that are propagated on the Medium Format Board.  The list is long....

I wonder how long DPR Mods would tolerate similar posts I could make on the Sony Board but in the opposite direction using the opposite talking points about how far superior the GFX 100 (or the GFX 50) is to high res FF and why.  They would not like that and it would not be allowed.  It would cause a firestorm of protest and the poster would end up getting permanently banned.

-- 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
OP JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 28,158
New results with C1, no output resampling

In my GigaPixel AI post in this thread, I upsampled files from the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2 on the GFX 100 and the Zeiss Otus 85 mm f/1.4 on the a7RIV, using Topaz GigaPixel AI, with surprising results. I had concerns about possible under-the-hood sharpening differences with Lightroom, and also with Lightroom's export resizing, so I decided to process the raw files in a way to eliminate both. I used Capture One (C1) for the development, and I'm posting 100%-magnification (unresampled) files. I tried to use Raw Therapee for the raw developer, but the Fuji GFX 100 profile in the current version has color errors that are serious enough to make it difficult to compare the Sony and Fuji images.

I sharpened both the GFX 100 and a7RIV images with radius 0.5, amount 100%, and threshold 1. That gives a per-pixel level playing field. Then I sharpened the GFX image with the radius 0.7, which is the same amount of sharpening on an image-height basis.

Details here:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/a7riv-vs-gfx-100-landscape-iq-with-gigapixel-ai-part-2/

I couldn't show the 2000-pixel crops (equivalent to about 20,000 pixel high full images) on my blog, but I can show them to you here:

GFX 100, f/5.6 , radius 0.5

a7RIV, f/4

GFX 100, f/5.6, radius 0.7

This is more like what I expected when I did the Lightroom developed image experiment.

The Fuji is slightly handicapped by the fact that the 110/2 is not as sharp at f/5.6 as it is at f/4.

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: 3,739
Re: New results with C1, no output resampling

JimKasson wrote:

In my GigaPixel AI post in this thread, I upsampled files from the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2 on the GFX 100 and the Zeiss Otus 85 mm f/1.4 on the a7RIV, using Topaz GigaPixel AI, with surprising results. I had concerns about possible under-the-hood sharpening differences with Lightroom, and also with Lightroom's export resizing, so I decided to process the raw files in a way to eliminate both. I used Capture One (C1) for the development, and I'm posting 100%-magnification (unresampled) files. I tried to use Raw Therapee for the raw developer, but the Fuji GFX 100 profile in the current version has color errors that are serious enough to make it difficult to compare the Sony and Fuji images.

I sharpened both the GFX 100 and a7RIV images with radius 0.5, amount 100%, and threshold 1. That gives a per-pixel level playing field. Then I sharpened the GFX image with the radius 0.7, which is the same amount of sharpening on an image-height basis.

Details here:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/a7riv-vs-gfx-100-landscape-iq-with-gigapixel-ai-part-2/

I couldn't show the 2000-pixel crops (equivalent to about 20,000 pixel high full images) on my blog, but I can show them to you here:

GFX 100, f/5.6 , radius 0.5

a7RIV, f/4

GFX 100, f/5.6, radius 0.7

This is more like what I expected when I did the Lightroom developed image experiment.

The Fuji is slightly handicapped by the fact that the 110/2 is not as sharp at f/5.6 as it is at f/4.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Thanks for doing this demo/test and the efforts looking into what happened when upscaling in GigaPixel AI.

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

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,986
Re: 👎👎👎

Greg7579 wrote:

Teila Day wrote

I would advise many if not most people today looking at MF, to simply wait.

100mp crammed onto the 44x33 sensor...

Teila,

Why do you write a smiley face after making that damning statement on the MF Board?

Hello Greg.  I placed a smile after I said my peace because that's what I would've done had I been speaking in person.  Whether I agree or disagree with someone doesn't dictate whether or not I can be warm (unlike me I'll admit) and simply smile to another human being.

I think you took me out of context as well; I detected a slight bit of friendly sarcasm from Marco at his mentioning that the Canon can't match some of the MF offerings due to its limited iso range.   In that context I had to smile as well because that was my overall point; I buy or use MF generally because of what the format offers overall over FF options.  I don't get into gear cat-fights over things that I consider relatively trite.

You and Macro have a lot in common on your FF is = or > than GFX MF.

I think Macro would agree that we've been mostly at odds when it comes to MF vs. FF related discussions.  To my knowledge, I've never made a single post on this site or otherwise mentioning anything  that would lead anyone to believe that I think FF is = to or > than medium format.  I'll tell you what I tell others, when you wish to say what I've said... quote me to avoid misconceptions or misquotes.

I do not agree with your advice that people who are interested in MF just "wait."

That's not a bad or good thing.  That's just a difference of opinion which I can appreciate.

Fuji does not agree. Nor do I. If I had thought that I doubt if I would have dropped ten grand on the GFX 100 body and would instead have bought the alphasevenarefour.

Fuji is in the business of selling cameras so let's leave their opinion out of the conversation.

The 26 people who have piped in so far on this Board who just bought the GFX 100 are fools.

Obviously since I don't know why anyone bought their GFX 100, what their personal finances are, or even what their photographic goal is - I can't attest to whether their respective purchases were "foolish" or not.

They should have followed your advice and listened to Macro and not made that bad decision. They should have "waited."

Macro doesn't have anything to do with me, his views are his own and likewise mine and over the year(s) we've had varying viewpoints which I think is healthy and intellectually stimulating; bringing about good conversation whether I agree or not.

My statement was that I would advise *many* if not *most* to wait on purchasing MF because I do not think most buyers will realize the kind of differences that shooting MF digital was known for in the past.   A 16mp FF camera from many years ago, did not yield the same results as a 16mp MFDB.   Not only did nearly every MF camera have a higher sync speed over its FF counterpart, but also didn't produce that tell-tale "dusty" or "hazy" results (irrespective of shooting raw, tiff,  or jpg)  inherent to nearly every non-MF digital camera back then.   The benefit to shooting was pretty obvious.

I don't think the 100 MP was "crammed" onto the new sensor. Were pixels "crammed" onto the Sony alpghasevenarefour?

You'll have to consult those with more tech knowledge than I on the technicals.  I can only attest to real-life results, and when it comes to real-life results, I would be surprised to see 100mp on a 44x33 slab ever besting an up-to-date (or possibly even a dated 100mp Hasselblad or Phase for that matter) which is why I'd MUCH rather see Pentax offer the old 100mp on the larger sensor like the old Hasselblad and Phase... just rework and modernize the software, firmware, and whatever else electronic that makes the sensor do what it does.  I would much rather pay for that because I get an instant, irrefutable advantage with the larger sensor the moment I put the camera too my face and look through the viewfinder...

I'm adding your quotes to my long list of anti-MF talking points that are propagated on the Medium Format Board. The list is long....

((chuckle)) Whatever makes your ears wiggle.   I've only championed MF.  It's my favorite format, but if you want to be the subject of your own irony then don't let me get in your way.  Full steam ahead.

What I am is consistent, grounded and honest.  I do not have brand loyalty as I'm simply loyal to products which what work well for their intended use while considering a full bevy of variables including cost/benefit ratio.  Considering such, I am fully cognizant that everyone's goals and usage isn't the same, hence my choice of words; "most" and "many".

I wonder how long DPR Mods would tolerate similar posts I could make on the Sony Board but in the opposite direction using the opposite talking points about how far superior the GFX 100 (or the GFX 50) is to high res FF and why. They would not like that and it would not be allowed.

Probably because it could be construed as something that most mature adults wouldn't do.  Adults disagree sure, but for

It would cause a firestorm of protest and the poster would end up getting permanently banned.

It wouldn't phase me one bit if I were a Sony user because getting flustered over something so beneath me (protesting online as if I were in the 2nd grade and immature for my age) would just be ridiculous wouldn't you agree..

Best in photography to you and everyone

-- hide signature --
rbf Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: New results with C1, no output resampling

JimKasson wrote:

In my GigaPixel AI post in this thread, I upsampled files from the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2 on the GFX 100 and the Zeiss Otus 85 mm f/1.4 on the a7RIV, using Topaz GigaPixel AI, with surprising results. I had concerns about possible under-the-hood sharpening differences with Lightroom, and also with Lightroom's export resizing, so I decided to process the raw files in a way to eliminate both. I used Capture One (C1) for the development, and I'm posting 100%-magnification (unresampled) files. I tried to use Raw Therapee for the raw developer, but the Fuji GFX 100 profile in the current version has color errors that are serious enough to make it difficult to compare the Sony and Fuji images.

I sharpened both the GFX 100 and a7RIV images with radius 0.5, amount 100%, and threshold 1. That gives a per-pixel level playing field. Then I sharpened the GFX image with the radius 0.7, which is the same amount of sharpening on an image-height basis.

Details here:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/a7riv-vs-gfx-100-landscape-iq-with-gigapixel-ai-part-2/

I couldn't show the 2000-pixel crops (equivalent to about 20,000 pixel high full images) on my blog, but I can show them to you here:

GFX 100, f/5.6 , radius 0.5

a7RIV, f/4

GFX 100, f/5.6, radius 0.7

This is more like what I expected when I did the Lightroom developed image experiment.

The Fuji is slightly handicapped by the fact that the 110/2 is not as sharp at f/5.6 as it is at f/4.

Jim

That looks a lot more what one would expect from the other comparisons. I guess Gigapixel AI has not brought the Age of Megapixel Invariance upon us after all

SrMi
SrMi Senior Member • Posts: 1,057
Re: New results with C1, no output resampling

JimKasson wrote:

In my GigaPixel AI post in this thread, I upsampled files from the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2

I see you mention this lens in your blog as well. Are you thinking of 110mm f/2?

Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,986
Re: Relevance (reiterated.. slowly)

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

Ok, so you don't like the Canon sensor. That's fine, but would that sensor have been any better scaled up to 33x44? Would the Sony sensor have been any worse scaled down to 24x36? (aside from the resolution differences of course)

I don't know or even suppose either way because I can't purchase "what if".. I can only buy what exists.

It is a good point. Regarding Sony sensors I would say that the sensor technology in the GFX 100 and the Sony A7rIV is essentially the same. But it is entirely possible that say Fuji does a better job of using the sensor

It's all too close for me to engage. With the larger 100mp sensor you're getting a 53.4 x 40.0mm sensor (if I recall) which is notably larger than the smaller 44x33mm...

So if you do some conversions, assuming you're using a 35mm lens..

53.4 x 40.0mm would give 0.64 x 35mm for a real-world FF angle of view of about 22.4mm

comparatively..

44 x 33mm would give 0.79 x 35mm for a real-world FF angle of view of about 27.65mm

That's a difference of 5.25mm... while that difference on a telephoto or even the difference of 20mm in the 'normal' range isn't often worth the quibble... a mere 5.25mm on a wide end is at the very least readily noticeable when you're shooting a relatively small spaces (bedrooms, bathrooms, pool-houses, city trams, and airport breezeways).

That's a very noticeable advantage for people who purchase for readily visible practical differences and or notable processing advantages. The problem with 33x44 today is that it doesn't make remotely as much sense as it did half a decade ago (which is expected), except for those wanting a leaf shutter option (HSS, etc., doesn't compare when it comes to the versatility of a leaf shutter lens).

Personally I don't really care about sensor size at all. What I think is important that it is adequate for the task at hand.

I agree with your sentiment mostly, however I cannot overlook the 'wide-angle' advantage that can be realized based on just sensor size alone.  ** There were times when I was shooting in close confines and would take my 17-35 f/2.8 nikkor off my Nikon D2hs and put it on a film camera... the difference was huge.  The advantage was immediate.

Imagine Hasselblad's 21mm XCD lens designed for the much larger sensor... that's about a 13mm lens.  How much could they sell such a lens for if it produced limited distortion and relatively "flat" results compared to other wide lenses?  $6k, $8.5k, $10k?

If you need 100 MP, I would think that a 100 MP 44x33 sensor may be as good as a 100 MP 54x41 mm sensor. The larger sensor may have other advantages, of course.

As far as image quality is concerned, I would think that ultimately you can eek more performance out of the larger sensor, especially with modern processes even re-work older 100mp sensors to be at the very least on-par with what's found in the GFX... but then you get the larger physical sensor size in addition, which affects angle-of-view which can be an advantage.

Interesting thing you mention leaf shutter, I think it matters. I would also say that it is noticeable even shooting macro outdoors with the Hasselblad 555/ELD and electronic flash.

I agree 100%.  I don't know of any modern high speed syncing wizardry that can best simply using leaf shutter lenses... and I still think Pentax deserves a dirty wet dishrag across  the back of their necks for not fielding at least several leaf shutter options... even if they required manually cocking.  A leaf shutter version of the 35, 55 and 120mm lenses would've signaled Pentax's willingness to at least address one of the most glaring issues in modern photography.  (slow) Sync speed.

The two things that are like horsepower in photography.  Pixels (or film size) and light.  You can never have too much at your disposal.  Being able to harness and control that light via a full range of sync speeds is a very practical capability that many photographers would like to have, I hope to see a lot of advancement in that area in the future.

Best regards

Best in photography to you Erik

Erik

-- hide signature --
Greg7579
Greg7579 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,392
Re: 👎👎👎

I know what would happen if I went trolling on the Sony Board saying what you said but in reverse and asking why and how they "crammed" so many pixels on the alphasevenarefour sensor while also claiming superiority of the MF size and IQ while lecturing potential Sony FF buyers that they should "wait"....

It would start a riot and I would get banned.

But that will never happen because I don't post there because I don't own the equipment and if I did post I would not troll.

-- 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
OP JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 28,158
Re: New results with C1, no output resampling

SrMi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

In my GigaPixel AI post in this thread, I upsampled files from the Fujifilm 100 mm f/2

I see you mention this lens in your blog as well. Are you thinking of 110mm f/2?

Uh, yeah. Oops.

-- 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
JALComputing
JALComputing Contributing Member • Posts: 646
My Story

Teila Day wrote:

My statement was that I would advise *many* if not *most* to wait on purchasing MF because I do not think most buyers will realize the kind of differences that shooting MF digital was known for in the past. A 16mp FF camera from many years ago, did not yield the same results as a 16mp MFDB. Not only did nearly every MF camera have a higher sync speed over its FF counterpart, but also didn't produce that tell-tale "dusty" or "hazy" results (irrespective of shooting raw, tiff, or jpg) inherent to nearly every non-MF digital camera back then. The benefit to shooting was pretty obvious.

Teila Day... I have waited and waited to upgrade to MF. I finally made my decision to upgrade with the availability of the GFX 100 and I am happy with my decision. Of course, others will have to balance their wants with their own financial resources.

My experience in MF is from film. I still have a TLR Rollei and a Hasse. I was not willing to pull the trigger on a $48,000 digital Hasselblad. I looked at upgrading from my Sony A7rii to the A7Riv vs purchasing the GFX 100. The superior IQ of the GFX 100 over the Sony A7Riv was the deciding factor for me. I am happy with my decision. Part of my satisfaction with the GFX 100 is the excellent 32-64mm f4.0 Fuji zoom and 110mm f2 Fuji prime. I am still awaiting my order for a shift lens adapter for all of my old Hasse V lenses. I am hoping that the 6X6 image circle of the V lenses should be adequate for shift on the 33X44 sensor. And I would so love to start using my V lenses again.

If someone wants to shoot iPhone, mFT, APS-C, FF, or MF just go for it. Have some fun.

Jeff

 JALComputing's gear list:JALComputing's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a7R II Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +9 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads