Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 22,801
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
2

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

-- hide signature --
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,583
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
1

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +4 more
enigmatico Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
2

Greg7579 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

It sounds to me like money is burning a hole in your pocket. You already have a camera that's more capable than your needs. Are you printing any of your work? If so, how big are the prints?

You can certainly go the 100S route and be no worse for wear, but be aware that it's going this whole thing is going to run you around $10k and it may wind up being an exercise in futility as you find out that the equipment hasn't made your photography any better, sharing your photos via the web doesn't require anything even remotely near to what you already have, much less the 100S and you'll be out of 10 grand, which could have been spent on something more... useful.

Macro and I have had this discussion many times. He has said all of this many times and he is certainly right about the ten grand minimum. It is insanely expensive and you have to realize that up front and be willing and able to spend it. And ten grand is not all. It will grow. So he is right about that.

But I never agree when Macro starts the lecture about GFX not making that much difference unless you print big, and that if you just post on the web it won't matter.

Let me tell you that it does. The differences in image fidelity is significant and you will see and enjoy it. It can have an effect on you and your photography.

But what really matters is the word "want" not "need". You want it, and you know why.

The only question is can you afford it, and if you can, are you willing to go in for ten grand and up?

If so, then you have already decided.

I shall chip in with my case scenario, because I seem to defy the norm. I use several cameras but my current favourite setup is a GFX50R paired with an adapted manual focus Zeiss Distagon 35mm f1.4 mark ii lens. (An outstanding pairing that gives me a wonderful wide aperture on a medium format camera)

Both were bought used but in 100% mint condition The camera was about $2,300 and the lens about $800 (in USD).

I carry this relatively heavy setup for my street photography. (Only a hobby). I’m in my 60’s, my eyesight isn’t great and I don’t print anything larger than 6” x 9”.

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.
There are endless discussions about how you don’t need this or that camera if you don’t print large. In a sense those arguments are true. But a camera is much more than its IQ. It’s also an artist’s tool and the choice for an artist is an emotive one. How you relate to it, how you feel using it, whether the ergonomics are right for you, how it looks....... etc.  A heavy manual focus camera slows me down and makes me think more before I take a picture. I appreciate that it does that for me. 
I am not a snob about it; I also own Sony cameras and Fuji X.  Sometimes I like to carry lightweight gear or have fun with eye AF and tracking - but the GFX is my preferred camera by far. 
I would say to anyone who is curious about medium format, rent first or buy used so you don’t lose too much money if it doesn’t work out for you. Don’t expect Sony eye tracking or 30 frames a second. You might bond with it or you might not. Don’t base your decisions on how large you intend to print or whether you “need” medium format. Even APSC is so good today that few people even “need” FF let alone medium format. If photography is your hobby or passion and your heart says “medium format”, forget print sizes and give it a try if your budget allows 😊.

 enigmatico's gear list:enigmatico's gear list
Leica Q2 Leica SL (Typ 601) Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-H1 Sony a7 III +12 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

That is insanely lame.  No one agrees with me?  I am insulting people with vision acuity problems?  LOL!

MF is only beneficial if you print big?  Oh indeed that is nonsense and I knew it from my first glance at my first GFX image 30 months ago.  That myth is a big and well-known marketing anti-MF talking point.  For sure.  Absolutely.  There is no doubt about that.

I'll double-down on that one.  Mark it down.  It is a fact.

I already knew it, but any Fuji rep will tell you that, and so will the FF guys after a couple if drinks if you know them well.

It is one of the big easy to throw around marketing talking points in the camera wars.  The full frame guys are in a serious war with each other, but they are all united in their amazement of GFX and the damage it is doing to their high-ground.

I have a good friend who works at xxxxx.  GFX has them on edge because Fuji captured the high ground and there is not a damn thing they can do about it but try to put a dent in it by trying to convince people that the bigger sensor doesn't make much of a difference.

Good luck with trying to propagate that falsehood.

All you have to do is shoot it and look.

As far as agreeing with me?  What makes you think people don't agree with me?  Because you don't?

Let me tell you that we were not talking about The Medium Format Look here.  We are talking about the myth that MF only helps if you print big - a total falsehood and anti-MF talking point used by SonCaNikon on a daily basis.  It really is kind of pathetic and fun to watch.

But if we were talking about The MFL, 85% of this Board would agree with me that there is a Medium Format Look and 95% would agree that you don't have to print big to enjoy the glaringly obvious superior image fidelity of GFX.  Bank it.  I defy you to prove otherwise.

But the survey has to be people that own and shoot GFX but also own and shoot high-res FF.  It can't be people who don't who are spouting talking points and freaking out because their feelings get hurt for some reason, whether it be affordability or IQ.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Macro guy wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot.  No need to print big.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

tgltgl wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

The phone comment? Come on Tom! You can't put a phone up against even MFT or APSC, much less FF or GFX. Sure, we all like our phone snapshots (well, I don't except to document my airport parking lot), but let's not worry about phones when we are in a FF vs MF debate. πŸ˜ƒ

Greg,

I honestly can't tell the differences in most cases between high end FF and MF. But for about 5% or so of the images (typically and by far most likely those taken with the best GF glass which to me includes 23, 45, 110, and 250 - it seems 80 is in that category as well although I don't have so don't want to judge it) - when images are taken with those lenses at the stops where they shine, and the subjects and lighting is right that's when MF magic does happen, and differences in IQ can be quite obvious - but that is a huge minority of images I typically see (even posted on this great forum). Ok - with phones the differences are much more obvious but still there are many phone images that get posted online and it's often not obvious they were taken on the phones vs other formats (especially if good photographers have taken them). I think viewing those images on large calibrated 4K monitors like we use the IQ differences can be seen more easily , but we all know that is not how huge majority of people consume their images. Even people who use 'computers' to browse and view images most often seem to use laptops with 12-13" screens - and it's definitely not easy to see many differences there. Still, going back to MF and those 5% of best images taken with best GF glass - it is absolutely worth it to shoot MF just for those alone. I often view some of my favorite older images I took with my Canon systems over the years and only wish I had the GFX system (and could afford such a system) back in those days - it would have taken those images to another level of IQ greatness.

Tom, you know I luv ya.  You know I do.  But we see differently for some reason.  You really can't see the difference?  That's OK.

I love my high res FF.  It is awesome.  But I can see the difference every time.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
1

enigmatico wrote:

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.

This is the crux of the matter and the absolute truth.  It is why the camera world is freaking out right now at the high end.  It is why DPR melts down on so many Boards.

Does that mean you should buy GFX?  Hell no.  It is extremely expensive and FF will get you what you need.

But it won't get you what you want.  And knowing GFX is out there creates that want.

Why?

Because it has stunningly superior image fidelity and everybody who shoots it sees it and knows.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,583
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Greg7579 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah?  Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +4 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 22,801
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
2

Greg7579 wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

That is insanely lame. No one agrees with me? I am insulting people with vision acuity problems? LOL!

MF is only beneficial if you print big? Oh indeed that is nonsense and I knew it from my first glance at my first GFX image 30 months ago. That myth is a big and well-known marketing anti-MF talking point. For sure. Absolutely. There is no doubt about that.

I'll double-down on that one. Mark it down. It is a fact.

I already knew it, but any Fuji rep will tell you that, and so will the FF guys after a couple if drinks if you know them well.

It is one of the big easy to throw around marketing talking points in the camera wars. The full frame guys are in a serious war with each other, but they are all united in their amazement of GFX and the damage it is doing to their high-ground.

I have a good friend who works at xxxxx. GFX has them on edge because Fuji captured the high ground and there is not a damn thing they can do about it but try to put a dent in it by trying to convince people that the bigger sensor doesn't make much of a difference.

Good luck with trying to propagate that falsehood.

All you have to do is shoot it and look.

As far as agreeing with me? What makes you think people don't agree with me? Because you don't?

Let me tell you that we were not talking about The Medium Format Look here. We are talking about the myth that MF only helps if you print big - a total falsehood and anti-MF talking point used by SonCaNikon on a daily basis. It really is kind of pathetic and fun to watch.

But if we were talking about The MFL, 85% of this Board would agree with me that there is a Medium Format Look and 95% would agree that you don't have to print big to enjoy the glaringly obvious superior image fidelity of GFX. Bank it. I defy you to prove otherwise.

But the survey has to be people that own and shoot GFX but also own and shoot high-res FF. It can't be people who don't who are spouting talking points and freaking out because their feelings get hurt for some reason, whether it be affordability or IQ.

Too much ad hominum in this post for my taste, sorry.

-- hide signature --
NotASpeckOfCereal Senior Member • Posts: 2,042
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Macro guy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Okay, I got $20 on Greg. Who's taken the markers?

Chris

 NotASpeckOfCereal's gear list:NotASpeckOfCereal's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D850 Fujifilm GFX 100S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +16 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Macro guy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Let's do it in Thailand at your place!  I want to come back so bad.....

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user
1

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Okay, I got $20 on Greg. Who's taken the markers?

Chris

During the test, it might help if I am allowed to take a peek at the metadata while viewing in LR.  πŸ‘€πŸ‘€

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
NotASpeckOfCereal Senior Member • Posts: 2,042
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Greg7579 wrote:

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Okay, I got $20 on Greg. Who's taken the markers?

Chris

During the test, it might help if I am allowed to take a peek at the metadata while viewing in LR. πŸ‘€πŸ‘€

You wanna make sure the horse wasn't doped?

 NotASpeckOfCereal's gear list:NotASpeckOfCereal's gear list
Nikon D3 Nikon D850 Fujifilm GFX 100S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +16 more
Macro guy
Macro guy Veteran Member • Posts: 5,583
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Greg7579 wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Let's do it in Thailand at your place! I want to come back so bad.....

I can pull images from the web, resize them, crop some to 4:3, crop some to 3:2, crop some square and leave some alone.  I'll remove the metadata and I'll post them here.

 Macro guy's gear list:Macro guy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +4 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 22,801
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

Greg7579 wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.

This is the crux of the matter and the absolute truth. It is why the camera world is freaking out right now at the high end. It is why DPR melts down on so many Boards.

Does that mean you should buy GFX? Hell no. It is extremely expensive and FF will get you what you need.

But it won't get you what you want. And knowing GFX is out there creates that want.

Why?

Because it has stunningly superior image fidelity and everybody who shoots it sees it and knows.

What do you think about Foveon?

Personally, I think Foveon sensors completely blow even the largest full frame medium format out of the water when examined 1:1 at pixel level at base ISO for per pixel acuity and sharpness.

They have a couple of significant problems, that hold back the technology, however: poor noise handling as the ISO goes up even a little, weak dynamic range, and occasionally questionable colour.

Of course, in your frame of reference, the high resolution 25MP is nowhere near enough. But even so, a Merrill sensor image, properly done, simply offers the highest per pixel fidelity I've seen. Pinpoint sharpness that equals a full mono sensor, amazing edge rendition, complete absence of colour aliasing and no de-mosaic artefacts. The lack of artefacts leads to a huge enlargeability factor despite the low pixel count.

The GFX impresses because of its sheer size and beautiful rendering, and at pixel level it's excellent for a Bayer sensor, but it isn't as good as as low ISO Foveon. If you were to crop an equal sized section out of your favourite GFX and compared it at pixel level to a (ISO 100) Merrill, you might be surprised. Basically, everyone who looks carefully at a Foveon image at 1:1 is wowed by the incredible sharpness and lack of artefacts. You just have to look to see it (you see what I did there?).

it's debateable if the slightly larger than 35mm GFX sensor really has the medium format look, but there certainly is a Foveon look. If Sigma ever get the Full Frame Foveon into production,it might be time to dump your Fuji gear

-- hide signature --
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

NotASpeckOfCereal wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

I bet you Greg would not be able to pass the Pepsi challenge himself if he were faced with a number of photographs from FF and GFX.

Oh yes I would. Send an emissary with all the top cameras from SonCaNikon and Fuji. Take a series of shots at my direction. Then blind test me on a monitor of my choosing.

I will nail it on every shot. No need to print big.

Oh yeah? Let's negotiate the terms of the test.

Okay, I got $20 on Greg. Who's taken the markers?

Chris

During the test, it might help if I am allowed to take a peek at the metadata while viewing in LR. πŸ‘€πŸ‘€

You wanna make sure the horse wasn't doped?

No, silly ... I want to get a peek at which camera was used.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
JimKasson
MOD JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 35,013
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.

This is the crux of the matter and the absolute truth. It is why the camera world is freaking out right now at the high end. It is why DPR melts down on so many Boards.

Does that mean you should buy GFX? Hell no. It is extremely expensive and FF will get you what you need.

But it won't get you what you want. And knowing GFX is out there creates that want.

Why?

Because it has stunningly superior image fidelity and everybody who shoots it sees it and knows.

What do you think about Foveon?

Personally, I think Foveon sensors completely blow even the largest full frame medium format out of the water when examined 1:1 at pixel level at base ISO for per pixel acuity and sharpness.

They have a couple of significant problems, that hold back the technology, however: poor noise handling as the ISO goes up even a little, weak dynamic range, and occasionally questionable colour.

Of course, in your frame of reference, the high resolution 25MP is nowhere near enough. But even so, a Merrill sensor image, properly done, simply offers the highest per pixel fidelity I've seen. Pinpoint sharpness that equals a full mono sensor, amazing edge rendition, complete absence of colour aliasing and no de-mosaic artefacts. The lack of artefacts leads to a huge enlargeability factor despite the low pixel count.

The GFX impresses because of its sheer size and beautiful rendering, and at pixel level it's excellent for a Bayer sensor, but it isn't as good as as low ISO Foveon. If you were to crop an equal sized section out of your favourite GFX and compared it at pixel level to a (ISO 100) Merrill, you might be surprised. Basically, everyone who looks carefully at a Foveon image at 1:1 is wowed by the incredible sharpness and lack of artefacts. You just have to look to see it (you see what I did there?).

it's debateable if the slightly larger than 35mm GFX sensor really has the medium format look, but there certainly is a Foveon look. If Sigma ever get the Full Frame Foveon into production,it might be time to dump your Fuji gear

First off, the prize is the finished image, not pixel peeping at 100%.

Second, if you say the per pixel fidelity of the Merrill is the best you've ever seen, you've never used a Betterlight Super 6K.

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II +1 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 22,801
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

JimKasson wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.

This is the crux of the matter and the absolute truth. It is why the camera world is freaking out right now at the high end. It is why DPR melts down on so many Boards.

Does that mean you should buy GFX? Hell no. It is extremely expensive and FF will get you what you need.

But it won't get you what you want. And knowing GFX is out there creates that want.

Why?

Because it has stunningly superior image fidelity and everybody who shoots it sees it and knows.

What do you think about Foveon?

Personally, I think Foveon sensors completely blow even the largest full frame medium format out of the water when examined 1:1 at pixel level at base ISO for per pixel acuity and sharpness.

They have a couple of significant problems, that hold back the technology, however: poor noise handling as the ISO goes up even a little, weak dynamic range, and occasionally questionable colour.

Of course, in your frame of reference, the high resolution 25MP is nowhere near enough. But even so, a Merrill sensor image, properly done, simply offers the highest per pixel fidelity I've seen. Pinpoint sharpness that equals a full mono sensor, amazing edge rendition, complete absence of colour aliasing and no de-mosaic artefacts. The lack of artefacts leads to a huge enlargeability factor despite the low pixel count.

The GFX impresses because of its sheer size and beautiful rendering, and at pixel level it's excellent for a Bayer sensor, but it isn't as good as as low ISO Foveon. If you were to crop an equal sized section out of your favourite GFX and compared it at pixel level to a (ISO 100) Merrill, you might be surprised. Basically, everyone who looks carefully at a Foveon image at 1:1 is wowed by the incredible sharpness and lack of artefacts. You just have to look to see it (you see what I did there?).

it's debateable if the slightly larger than 35mm GFX sensor really has the medium format look, but there certainly is a Foveon look. If Sigma ever get the Full Frame Foveon into production,it might be time to dump your Fuji gear

First off, the prize is the finished image, not pixel peeping at 100%.

Second, if you say the per pixel fidelity of the Merrill is the best you've ever seen, you've never used a Betterlight Super 6K.

True on both counts, Jim. But I feel you missed the intent of my post

-- hide signature --
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

tgltgl wrote:

Satyaa wrote:

I understand your point. My first spend on a digital system was fairly modest with a Rebel Digital XTi and one lens. Five years later, and for next 8 or so years, I have a decent but not a heavy spend into Nikon system. I plan to use them as long as they work.

The next system I buy will probably be my last. The one thing I expect from it is satisfaction. So, I need to consider carefully.

If it means a used 50S with a 45mm prime, or even a Z body with a couple of primes, I am open to all possibilities and am not in a rush.

Thanks.

I own GFX 50R and most of the GFX primes at this point (also a former long time Canon DSLR user), and have been super happy with the system so far over the last couple of years. But even if I could only own 50R + GF 45 for the rest of my life it would still be enough to make me happy. That lens is my all time favorite and to me it was worth switching to GFX just to be able to shoot with it (I will eventually upgrade 50R to some new model down the road). I disagree with those who say it's not worth using GFX if you don't print big - I actually don't print at all but enjoy viewing those glorious files on my huge 43" 4K monitor - more than worth it to shoot MF just for that reason alone as far as I"m concerned. Some of the new FF cameras and lenses are amazing as well, but as far as purely IQ is concerned MF systems are still superior. Of course in most images it's hard to tell the difference, but that is true even if you shoot with high end mobile phones (for casual viewing). But for some of those very special once in a lifetime images (even if only capturing a handful of those every year) it is really worth it to have the best possible equipment - for me that also means always using GF primes over GF zooms.

Good post Tom. I agree with you on the printing big comment. That whole nonsense about how MF is only beneficial if you print big is ridiculous anti-MF FF marketing propaganda.

I totally disagree with you that on most images you can't tell the difference between MF and FF. There is a big difference and you can tell on every image. Not just some.

Greg.

I'm not going to debate the image quality of MF with you this time, but if you think carefully about your comment above (bolded), there is more than a little irony here. You have basically stated that anyone who who doesn't see what you see is spreading anti-medium format propaganda.

Quite apart from this being pro MF propaganda in its own right, what about someone who (say) has an eyesight problem and maybe can't see subtle differences? A bit insulting or thoughtless a judgement on your part, IMO. Unless you can produce some objective evidence that everyone is lying, really the strongest you can legitimately claim is that MF looks so much better to you that you can't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with you.

That is insanely lame. No one agrees with me? I am insulting people with vision acuity problems? LOL!

MF is only beneficial if you print big? Oh indeed that is nonsense and I knew it from my first glance at my first GFX image 30 months ago. That myth is a big and well-known marketing anti-MF talking point. For sure. Absolutely. There is no doubt about that.

I'll double-down on that one. Mark it down. It is a fact.

I already knew it, but any Fuji rep will tell you that, and so will the FF guys after a couple if drinks if you know them well.

It is one of the big easy to throw around marketing talking points in the camera wars. The full frame guys are in a serious war with each other, but they are all united in their amazement of GFX and the damage it is doing to their high-ground.

I have a good friend who works at xxxxx. GFX has them on edge because Fuji captured the high ground and there is not a damn thing they can do about it but try to put a dent in it by trying to convince people that the bigger sensor doesn't make much of a difference.

Good luck with trying to propagate that falsehood.

All you have to do is shoot it and look.

As far as agreeing with me? What makes you think people don't agree with me? Because you don't?

Let me tell you that we were not talking about The Medium Format Look here. We are talking about the myth that MF only helps if you print big - a total falsehood and anti-MF talking point used by SonCaNikon on a daily basis. It really is kind of pathetic and fun to watch.

But if we were talking about The MFL, 85% of this Board would agree with me that there is a Medium Format Look and 95% would agree that you don't have to print big to enjoy the glaringly obvious superior image fidelity of GFX. Bank it. I defy you to prove otherwise.

But the survey has to be people that own and shoot GFX but also own and shoot high-res FF. It can't be people who don't who are spouting talking points and freaking out because their feelings get hurt for some reason, whether it be affordability or IQ.

Too much ad hominum in this post for my taste, sorry.

No worries.  Not aimed at you.  We can leave it alone.  I was addressing the Great Unwashed Masses in order to be generally informative of the well-known truths.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,041
Re: Basic questions - wannabe MF user

DMillier wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

So, why use such a system? Because the files are clearly richer and contain more information than images I get from other cameras. The IQ is stunning.

This is the crux of the matter and the absolute truth. It is why the camera world is freaking out right now at the high end. It is why DPR melts down on so many Boards.

Does that mean you should buy GFX? Hell no. It is extremely expensive and FF will get you what you need.

But it won't get you what you want. And knowing GFX is out there creates that want.

Why?

Because it has stunningly superior image fidelity and everybody who shoots it sees it and knows.

What do you think about Foveon?

Personally, I think Foveon sensors completely blow even the largest full frame medium format out of the water when examined 1:1 at pixel level at base ISO for per pixel acuity and sharpness.

They have a couple of significant problems, that hold back the technology, however: poor noise handling as the ISO goes up even a little, weak dynamic range, and occasionally questionable colour.

Of course, in your frame of reference, the high resolution 25MP is nowhere near enough. But even so, a Merrill sensor image, properly done, simply offers the highest per pixel fidelity I've seen. Pinpoint sharpness that equals a full mono sensor, amazing edge rendition, complete absence of colour aliasing and no de-mosaic artefacts. The lack of artefacts leads to a huge enlargeability factor despite the low pixel count.

The GFX impresses because of its sheer size and beautiful rendering, and at pixel level it's excellent for a Bayer sensor, but it isn't as good as as low ISO Foveon. If you were to crop an equal sized section out of your favourite GFX and compared it at pixel level to a (ISO 100) Merrill, you might be surprised. Basically, everyone who looks carefully at a Foveon image at 1:1 is wowed by the incredible sharpness and lack of artefacts. You just have to look to see it (you see what I did there?).

it's debateable if the slightly larger than 35mm GFX sensor really has the medium format look, but there certainly is a Foveon look. If Sigma ever get the Full Frame Foveon into production,it might be time to dump your Fuji gear

Once you have reached my level of camera gear acquisition insanity, trust me.... If it was better and I found out about it I would get it for sure.

How long can I live in this level of camera usage?  You can't take it with you.

I'm banking on 7 more years of camera mobility.  If I'm lucky....

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads