Comparision SDQH - DP2M - Fujifilm GFX100

So, this is a pixel peeping 100% view that takes no account of the resolution of the different camera?  In other words, it is only useful for examining per pixel acuity? Which will be heavily influenced by in-camera settings.

I have been on DPreview forums for over 20 years and I have seen plenty of image quality comparisons. If you compare different cameras at different reproduction sizes, it simply doesn't give any kind of realistic image quality comparison.   Images have to compared at identical sizes to make any sense.

A 5MP and a 100MP image may look reasonably similar at 100% but there is no comparison in a 60"x40" print.

There is no ideal way to do these comparisons over the web, you can't beat having the original files/prints to eyeball but I am still convinced that the most revealing way is to print out the files, then scan (or re-photograph) small sections.

When Chromelight and I did our SD14 article all those years ago, we scanned small sections of large prints at high resolution.  That really provide a good impression of relative performance and what a big print from the files would look like. Even with relatively inexpensive scanners, because you were making effectively a 1:1 scan, there was no issue about scanner defects. A scanner designed to scan and blow up small negs, is very happy scanning a print at actual size.

Still the most convincing way to compare files. And when it comes to comparing detail, you could quite happily do away with the scanner and just photograph sections of the print with another camera.

Hi Ted

How does it help to compare unequal size output, though?  An image ultimately has to be presented at a particular size (whether on screen or in a print).  What is looks like at a particular output size is what matters.

These are all meant to high resolution tools, so there they properly need to be compared at large, but still realistic output sizes.  The DP2M was often compared to D800 class cameras, so I guess you need to do the comparison at sat 30" inch wide, minimum.  It's only at that kind of output size that you are going to stress the image quality and produce something where any differences make a practical difference to which cam you are going to use.

Unless you someone for whom it's all about measuring image quality at pixel level, there must be more useful ways of comparing the output of cameras designed for making big prints or being displayed on huge screens - your 200% view of unequal size crops seems to be the least useful of all!

Scottelly wrote:

Thank you for posting this. There really is SUCH a difference. Of course there SHOULD be, right? After-all, who wants to pay so much for a Fujifilm GFX100, and not get what they're paying for? The SD Quattro H is what it is, and it's a great value, but the Fuji is a ten thousand dollar camera, takes big, expensive lenses, and is what it is too. I did a similar comparison once, using some autumn leaves, and I came to the conclusion at that time that I was pretty happy with my SD Quattro H. That was before the Fujifilm GFX100S came along though. That smaller, less-expensive camera, just might make me step up to medium format. For now though, I will shoot with what I've got, maybe get a Sony A7r IV, and probably get my SD Quattro H fixed. At some point down the road, probably more than a year from now, I might get that new Fuji. I can't get one now anyway, because they are on backorder, and it costs too much for me right now anyway.

Price - Fujifilm GFX100 == GULP !!  

Greetings Sigma Friends

HDPro Brasil wrote:

This was pretty exiting when I got my hands on a Fujifilm GFX100, this is a very good camera with some impressive features and some 100MP medium format sensor, what I also liked was the anti shake and the video.

Fuji has some excellent cameras. If you want anti shake buy the Sigma IS lenses they work fine and their cheaper. The FP does great video not sure about my SDQ-H I'll have to look.

If I would have too choose for ONE camera to work with, the Fujifilm would be on top of my list, it is as easy to handle as any other DSLR but has really a high quality output, but all this comes with a hefty pricetag.

There again if I had to choose one camera, I couldn't. My SD15 and my DP2x would be the top two. For the following reasons, the Fuji is to costly and to big, the SDQ-H is to slow and too big, my SD15 and DP2x give me the perfect balance between cost, size and speed I wish they had LV and and tilt screen. I wish the DP2x had a EVF.

As I had the camera for one day I made a walkaround in Basel with the Fujifilm GFX100 and the 63mm lens and to compare it I brought my SDQH plus the 35mm ART and the "old" DP2 Merrill.

The photos are a 100% crop out of camera JPG, just for the fun of it.

They look good

The Fuji's 100MP are really good, but in print, from my experience with other Bayer prints, the SDQH would narrow the gap quite a bit. So I am still quite happy with the SDQH even more when I look at the price, which is literally 10% of the Fuji.

A couple of friends and I were doing a print test, and printing some gallery work, we all use different cameras one Fuji, one Nikon, one Sony, one Canon and me with my Sigma's the SD15 or the SD1M, I sell more images. It's tied between the Sigma and my film prints. Sony being last, Nikon second along with the Fuji, then Canon. Just different styles in our work.

Anyway when printing 13x19 inches or 17x22 inches on a Epson P800 or the Canon Pro 1000. The Sigma/Foveon has the nod/edge over the others. It was crisper, sharper, and has more pop.

The Merrill looks a bit sad towards the Fuji, but come to think of it that there is some 8 years of engineering between the cameras and 100MP compared to 15MP for crying out loud! Not to mention one could buy 15 DP2M for the price of one Fujifilm combo.

Once again in print I really don't know if you'll see the difference. The printers can't do it.

Excellent samples.

Have fun be Safe

Roger J.

Fujifilm GFX100 & 63mm

SDQH & 35mm ART

DP2 Merrill

It would have been better to make these comparisons from photos taken in RAW format. Regardless, the SDQ-H will never be able to match the GFX100. The SDQ-H is the equivalent of a 50MPix.

Unless using Gigapixel AI.

Regarding color rendering, which device comes closest to the scene being photographed?

For me its all about the sensor.

Try these comparisons of a landscape with foliage.

Bayer sensors smear the foliage.

The SD1, sdqh render a finer and to me a much better image.

I spent time with the gfx50s, and other fujis.

Before that Canon, Nikon, Pentax.

None does for landscapes what Sigma does.

I'll stay with Sigma.

I even bought another h.

Don't like the Bayer look for my work.

Mike P

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany wrote:

Roger wrote:

Greetings Sigma Friends

HDPro Brasil wrote:

The Fuji's 100MP are really good, but in print, from my experience with other Bayer prints, the SDQH would narrow the gap quite a bit. So I am still quite happy with the SDQH even more when I look at the price, which is literally 10% of the Fuji.

A couple of friends and I were doing a print test, and printing some gallery work, we all use different cameras one Fuji, one Nikon, one Sony, one Canon and me with my Sigma's the SD15 or the SD1M, y when printing 13x19 inches or 17x22 inches on a Epson P800 or the Canon Pro 1000. The Sigma/Foveon has the nod/edge over the others. It was crisper, sharper, and has more pop.

Agreed.

MP, extra detail were never my reasons to go with Sigma.

It was the look in some scenes from Sigma that made me prefer to photograph with Sigma.

Yes, the tonal transitions and integration/harmony/continuity of the image rather than particles.

I had a DP3M and primarily shot with a Fuji X-Pro1.  Knowing that a GFX would be out of reach for many years, the Fuji release nevertheless prompted me to invest in an sd Quattro and Art lenses as consolation (and, in turn, the L family since I had lenses).

The GFX output and operational simplicity is magnificent, and even able to elicit some aspects of Foveon by brute force, but between Foveon and the S1R I feel like I’ve made the better choice.  One thing which appeals to me about the fp (which I don’t have) even without Foveon is the Fuji-like emphasis upon stylistic control/flow.