Comparison time

I made a couple of comparison shots with these two cameras.

Both are pretty much out of camera RAWs, converted to .tiff > .jpeg, with minimal processing.

I couldn't make them both original dimensions, so I've re-sized the GFX 50II file to match the SD1 Merrill (on the long side).

I reckon the SD1 Merrill compares pretty well in terms of details captured, when you consider that it's up against a 51MP sensor.

The other factor is the lenses used:

SD1 Merrill with the 17-70mm OS | C

Fujifilm GFX 50S II with Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR Lens

1. SD1 Merrill

2. Fujifilm GFX 50S II

3. This one is just included to illustrate the use of the CPL on the SD1 Merrill. I love this look.

Considering that down-sizing improves sharpness (per pixel) the SD1M did very well.

Interesting difference in the sky colors ... I prefer the SD1M's "tell it like it is" ...

SigmaChrome wrote:

3. This one is just included to illustrate the use of the CPL on the SD1 Merrill. I love this look.

I confess to leaving a CPL on my 18-35mm, only for 99% of the time... completely forgetting about it! That's a really nice example, and good inspiration for actually using a CPL properly

Interesting default rendering from the GFX50S II, punchier than I'd have imagined from a camera with excellent dynamic range. I'd be tempted by a GFX100S, it has a siren song, one that my wallet won't entertain though!

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I would prefer to see such comparisons at each camera's native resolution. Then I could resize with whatever technique I chose.

David

DavidWright2010 wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I would prefer to see such comparisons at each camera's native resolution. Then I could resize with whatever technique I chose.

David

Fair enough, if you can post full size fp L images here.

The main thing is to match the angle of view, and of course take the photos at the same place and time.

Don

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I haven't done such a comparison, since I don't own a Merrill.  When the fp L came out I processed some raws from the DPR sample shots using SPP, and downsized them to 15mp.  That satisfied me just fine, and a few weeks later I bought my own fp L and sold my sd Quattro.

But, try it yourself. Go to the fp L DPR sample shots, download a DNG raw or two, and process them with SPP, then save at "half" size.

As I remember, the comparison idea broke down when it came to color palettes, and it seems nothing else can quite match Foveon colors.  Lately I've been shooting with the fp L color mode called "FOV Classic Yellow".  I'm happy!

Tom Schum wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I haven't done such a comparison, since I don't own a Merrill. When the fp L came out I processed some raws from the DPR sample shots using SPP, and downsized them to 15mp. That satisfied me just fine, and a few weeks later I bought my own fp L and sold my sd Quattro.

But, try it yourself. Go to the fp L DPR sample shots, download a DNG raw or two, and process them with SPP, then save at "half" size.

You need two images of the same subject to make a comparison.

As I remember, the comparison idea broke down when it came to color palettes, and it seems nothing else can quite match Foveon colors. Lately I've been shooting with the fp L color mode called "FOV Classic Yellow". I'm happy!

Don

SigmaChrome wrote:

I made a couple of comparison shots with these two cameras.

Both are pretty much out of camera RAWs, converted to .tiff > .jpeg, with minimal processing.

Good job on the comparison!  Even with the CPL changing things, do you think the incoming lighting on the scene had changed between the two shots?  This is a problem with comparisons outdoors.  Subtle changes in outdoor lighting can be very quick.

I couldn't make them both original dimensions, so I've re-sized the GFX 50II file to match the SD1 Merrill (on the long side).

I reckon the SD1 Merrill compares pretty well in terms of details captured, when you consider that it's up against a 51MP sensor.

I agree!  In terms of resolution Foveon can easily be upsized from its stated resolution but Bayer is pretty much maxxed out at its stated resolution.  To me, it does look like the GFX is better, even at Merrill resolution.

But what do you think of the colors between the two?  Would you say the SD1 Merrill has better colors, and if so can you make the Fuji colors match?

The other factor is the lenses used:

SD1 Merrill with the 17-70mm OS | C

Fujifilm GFX 50S II with Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR Lens

Could you do a comparison with the same lens, such as the same adapted M42 lens on each camera?  Would this even be worth the trouble?

D Cox wrote:

Tom Schum wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I haven't done such a comparison, since I don't own a Merrill. When the fp L came out I processed some raws from the DPR sample shots using SPP, and downsized them to 15mp. That satisfied me just fine, and a few weeks later I bought my own fp L and sold my sd Quattro.

But, try it yourself. Go to the fp L DPR sample shots, download a DNG raw or two, and process them with SPP, then save at "half" size.

You need two images of the same subject to make a comparison.

As I remember, the comparison idea broke down when it came to color palettes, and it seems nothing else can quite match Foveon colors. Lately I've been shooting with the fp L color mode called "FOV Classic Yellow". I'm happy!

Don

Yes of course.  Sorry about that.

Because you asked for it, I tried uploading it to My Gallery on DPR but it chocked at the file size. It accepted the file from my computer. So here it is.

Image size 8256 x 6192

DavidWright2010 wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I would prefer to see such comparisons at each camera's native resolution. Then I could resize with whatever technique I chose.

Hi David. I've uploaded the original now.

Feel free to mess with it any way you like.

tagscuderia wrote:

SigmaChrome wrote:

3. This one is just included to illustrate the use of the CPL on the SD1 Merrill. I love this look.

I confess to leaving a CPL on my 18-35mm, only for 99% of the time... completely forgetting about it! That's a really nice example, and good inspiration for actually using a CPL properly

Yeah I do that too with the 18-35mm - a lot, and the 17-70mm - all the time!

Interesting default rendering from the GFX50S II, punchier than I'd have imagined from a camera with excellent dynamic range. I'd be tempted by a GFX100S, it has a siren song, one that my wallet won't entertain though!

I agonized over the GFX50S II for some time, but in the end I decided it was time to abandon all hope of seeing a Sigma Foveon 1:1:1 FF in the next few years - and never seeing a Sigma MF before I die. Frankly, I wasn't really that interested in any FF camera. I wanted a medium format. There is nothing like them.

FDecker wrote:

Is there a reason not to show both images at their native resolution? These are sensors with different properties, strengths and weaknesses. Resolution is for sure one important aspect. But you decide to throw this away, or to transfer it by some unknown down-sampling algorithm with unknown properties to lower res with hopefully better micro-contrast.

Would it be possible to show the full res GFX picture as well? Thank you!

Done that now.

xpatUSA wrote:

Considering that down-sizing improves sharpness (per pixel) the SD1M did very well.

Yes, I think it did. I could probably have used a sharper lens on the SD1M. Maybe next time.

Interesting difference in the sky colors ... I prefer the SD1M's "tell it like it is" ...

The GFX50S II may be slightly under exposed. Feel free to download and tweak it to your heart's content. Use the original file.

FDecker wrote:

SigmaChrome wrote:

FDecker wrote:

Is there a reason not to show both images at their native resolution? These are sensors with different properties, strengths and weaknesses. Resolution is for sure one important aspect. But you decide to throw this away, or to transfer it by some unknown down-sampling algorithm with unknown properties to lower res with hopefully better micro-contrast.

Would it be possible to show the full res GFX picture as well? Thank you!

Done that now.

Thank you!

I think that the full resolution is much better. Comparing it directly to the down-sampled version gives considerably more detail, and, I think doesn‘t even lose in micro-contrast.

As good as the SD1 is, the IQ of the GFX is much better.

I agree. The DR is excellent too, but not really evident in this shot.

Still, the SD1M punches above its weight.

SigmaChrome wrote:

DavidWright2010 wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Has anyone done a comparison of the fp L with a Merrill camera, using equivalent focal length lenses and with the fp L image downscaled to half its width and height (i.e. to 15 Megapixels) ?

A tree is a good subject.

Don

I would prefer to see such comparisons at each camera's native resolution. Then I could resize with whatever technique I chose.

Hi David. I've uploaded the original now.

Feel free to mess with it any way you like.

Thanks Vitée.

BTW congrats on your new camera. I thought about that one too, but since my interest is mostly astrophotography right now, my next purchase is likely to be an AP-specific, cooled, monochrome camera.

David

Tom Schum wrote:

SigmaChrome wrote:

I made a couple of comparison shots with these two cameras.

Both are pretty much out of camera RAWs, converted to .tiff > .jpeg, with minimal processing.

Good job on the comparison!

Thanks, Tom.

Even with the CPL changing things,

There was no CPL in the two shots -- on either camera lens.

do you think the incoming lighting on the scene had changed between the two shots?

No. Not a chance. It was cloudless blue sky.

This is a problem with comparisons outdoors. Subtle changes in outdoor lighting can be very quick.

The only thing that could've changed would have been an aeroplane flying past the sun and casting a shadow.

I couldn't make them both original dimensions, so I've re-sized the GFX 50II file to match the SD1 Merrill (on the long side).

I reckon the SD1 Merrill compares pretty well in terms of details captured, when you consider that it's up against a 51MP sensor.

I agree! In terms of resolution Foveon can easily be upsized from its stated resolution but Bayer is pretty much maxxed out at its stated resolution. To me, it does look like the GFX is better, even at Merrill resolution.

Yes, I agree.

But what do you think of the colors between the two? Would you say the SD1 Merrill has better colors, and if so can you make the Fuji colors match?

In this case the SD1 Merrill's colours look better, but with a tiny bit of adjustment I reckon they could be made to look very similar. The GFX shot may be a tad underexposed.

The other factor is the lenses used:

SD1 Merrill with the 17-70mm OS | C

Fujifilm GFX 50S II with Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR Lens

Could you do a comparison with the same lens, such as the same adapted M42 lens on each camera?

I'm sure it could be done but at the moment I have no way of doing it. And the M42 lens wouldn't cover the full 44 x 33mm frame.

Would this even be worth the trouble?

I doubt it.