How sharp is the FP-L?

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong?  What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

Sorry, but in my opinion this is a somewhat absurd question. When is a picture "sharp"?, normally given, that you have a good oder very good (and therefore expensive) lens, given, you have set up the focus and aperture to the most accurate setup, given, that you put the camera on a tripoid or to at least 1/500 sec in order to avoid camera shake. Then may have all "mathematical" conditions to take a "sharp" photo. But appeares such a picture as "sharp", if you blow up the resoluting file up to 1.20 meter x 1.20 meter on the wall and then looking at it out of the distance of 15 centimeter? What, if looking through a microscope?

I have never asked for ulimatively sharp pictures, but expressive pictures. No one is impressed by sharp pictures in an exhibition - exept of pixel peepers, but they visit exhibition not for expressive pictures, but for pixel peeping. An other aspect is to have the focus in a picture on the wrong detail, e.g. to have a person portait, but the focus is on the tip of the nose, but not the eyes.

I had a lot of nice exhibitions with pictures up to over 2 meters width with my SD1M. Those picts you use to look at out of distances of several meters on a large, free wall.

What are "sharp" pictures?

Best wishes,

Johannes

Resolution and sharpness are not quite the same thing.

The resolution of the sensor in the fpL is 61 Megapixels. How much of that is used in the image depends on the lens, and on focussing and camera shake.

Sharpness can be raised by using software such as Topaz Sharpen.

Don

Amadeus21 wrote:

Sorry, but in my opinion this is a somewhat absurd question. When is a picture "sharp"? <>

When it has high Acutance:

https://www.imatest.com/docs/cpiq-support/#SFR

<>

What are "sharp" pictures?

How about:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/sharpness/index.html

Amadeus21 wrote:

Sorry, but in my opinion this is a somewhat absurd question. When is a picture "sharp"?, normally given, that you have a good oder very good (and therefore expensive) lens, given, you have set up the focus and aperture to the most accurate setup, given, that you put the camera on a tripoid or to at least 1/500 sec in order to avoid camera shake. Then may have all "mathematical" conditions to take a "sharp" photo. But appeares such a picture as "sharp", if you blow up the resoluting file up to 1.20 meter x 1.20 meter on the wall and then looking at it out of the distance of 15 centimeter? What, if looking through a microscope?

I have never asked for ulimatively sharp pictures, but expressive pictures. No one is impressed by sharp pictures in an exhibition - exept of pixel peepers, but they visit exhibition not for expressive pictures, but for pixel peeping. An other aspect is to have the focus in a picture on the wrong detail, e.g. to have a person portait, but the focus is on the tip of the nose, but not the eyes.

I had a lot of nice exhibitions with pictures up to over 2 meters width with my SD1M. Those picts you use to look at out of distances of several meters on a large, free wall.

What are "sharp" pictures?

Best wishes,

Johannes

Not an absurd question. According to you gear list, you don't have an FP-L, so are you truly in a position to answer my post? My question deals more with whether the FPL have micro lenses over the sensor, or some other filter that softens the image.

I'm a senior member too here, and of course know of viewing distances, software sharpening, lens qualities, handheld vs. tripod shooting.

And yes, original sharpness is important if you're going to enlarge to very large sizes. Your personal opinion about this may differ, but I think it's important. Hope you can respect that.

D Cox wrote:

Resolution and sharpness are not quite the same thing.

The resolution of the sensor in the fpL is 61 Megapixels. How much of that is used in the image depends on the lens, and on focussing and camera shake.

Sharpness can be raised by using software such as Topaz Sharpen.

Don

Of course I know these things already, but any sharpening software can only be as good as the original photo allows it. Yes, today there is AI sharpening, which could "rescue" a photo, but again within certain limits/parameters.

xpatUSA wrote:

Amadeus21 wrote:

Sorry, but in my opinion this is a somewhat absurd question. When is a picture "sharp"? <>

When it has high Acutance:

https://www.imatest.com/docs/cpiq-support/#SFR

<>

What are "sharp" pictures?

How about:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/sharpness/index.html

Thanks for those links, and probably very accurate articles, but beyond my academic training to understand.

adegroot wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Amadeus21 wrote:

Sorry, but in my opinion this is a somewhat absurd question. When is a picture "sharp"? <>

When it has high Acutance:

https://www.imatest.com/docs/cpiq-support/#SFR

<>

What are "sharp" pictures?

How about:

http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/sharpness/index.html

Thanks for those links, and probably very accurate articles, but beyond my academic training to understand.

No problem, Adrian!

I was responding to a rather rude and overbearing post ...

adegroot wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Resolution and sharpness are not quite the same thing.

The resolution of the sensor in the fpL is 61 Megapixels. How much of that is used in the image depends on the lens, and on focussing and camera shake.

Sharpness can be raised by using software such as Topaz Sharpen.

Don

Of course I know these things already, but any sharpening software can only be as good as the original photo allows it. Yes, today there is AI sharpening, which could "rescue" a photo, but again within certain limits/parameters.

Well, to an extent, but for simple stuff like fixing a slightly blurred image (i.e. OOF) de-convolution can improve captured sharpness before AI got popular.

See:

https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Sharpening

And not forgetting the very useful Contrast By Detail Levels (from same link):

adegroot wrote:

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong? What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

It's very "sharp" . . . especially if you use the 65mm f2 i on it, or better yet, the 105mm f2.8 Art macro, which just may be the sharpest lens available (watch out you don't cut your eyes out with those sharp photos you'll make with it!).

Seriously, you can use various tools to "sharpen" photos from just about any camera, of course. In the L mount though, I don't think you can get a camera that will allow you to capture more detail than the fp L. Well . . . maybe the Panasonic S1R in pixel-shift mode . . .

If you don't want such a big, heavy camera as the S1R, but you want to use L mount lenses, I suggest going for the fp L. The only alternatives that can match or beat the fp L that I can think of are the more expensive Sony A7r IV and A7r V, or the much more expensive Leica M11, or the bigger, heavier Fuji GFX 100 S, which costs more than twice the price and requires big, heavy, expensive medium format lenses.

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

adegroot wrote:

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong? What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

It's very "sharp" . . . especially if you use the 65mm f2 i on it, or better yet, the 105mm f2.8 Art macro, which just may be the sharpest lens available (watch out you don't cut your eyes out with those sharp photos you'll make with it!).

Seriously, you can use various tools to "sharpen" photos from just about any camera, of course. In the L mount though, I don't think you can get a camera that will allow you to capture more detail than the fp L. Well . . . maybe the Panasonic S1R in pixel-shift mode . . .

If you don't want such a big, heavy camera as the S1R, but you want to use L mount lenses, I suggest going for the fp L. The only alternatives that can match or beat the fp L that I can think of are the more expensive Sony A7r IV and A7r V, or the much more expensive Leica M11, or the bigger, heavier Fuji GFX 100 S, which costs more than twice the price and requires big, heavy, expensive medium format lenses.

Many medium format users claim the 50MP MF cameras are better than the 61MP full frame sensor as well. I don't know whether this is just "medium format magic thinking" at work or whether the larger area does beat the smaller, higher pixel count sensor. Either way, I can't imagine there is much in it. On the lens front, the 35-70mm is affordable and quite light and compact for a medium format lens. It's good as well.

On the used market, the Fuji 50MP bodies are a very similar price to the A7r4. The fpL is slightly cheaper, but that is for the bare body. It's interesting that you can get medium format cameras for around the same price as full frame. In L mount, the S1r is about the same price as the fpL and it is an excellent camera.

With this pricing I still personally can't see the appeal of the fp cameras, unless you absolutely must have small size at the cost of everything else. But some people seem taken by them, so I guess there is a camera for everyone.

I can't see any significant difference between the test images from cameras with 24 MP APS-C sensors vs those with 24 MP full-frame sensors, so I bet the image quality from the fp L is actually better than the Fuji 50 MP cameras . . . at least up to about ISO 400 anyway.

left eye wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

adegroot wrote:

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong? What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

It's very "sharp" . . . especially if you use the 65mm f2 i on it, or better yet, the 105mm f2.8 Art macro, which just may be the sharpest lens available (watch out you don't cut your eyes out with those sharp photos you'll make with it!).

Seriously, you can use various tools to "sharpen" photos from just about any camera, of course. In the L mount though, I don't think you can get a camera that will allow you to capture more detail than the fp L. Well . . . maybe the Panasonic S1R in pixel-shift mode . . .

If you don't want such a big, heavy camera as the S1R, but you want to use L mount lenses, I suggest going for the fp L. The only alternatives that can match or beat the fp L that I can think of are the more expensive Sony A7r IV and A7r V, or the much more expensive Leica M11, or the bigger, heavier Fuji GFX 100 S, which costs more than twice the price and requires big, heavy, expensive medium format lenses.

Many medium format users claim the 50MP MF cameras are better than the 61MP full frame sensor as well. I don't know whether this is just "medium format magic thinking" at work or whether the larger area does beat the smaller, higher pixel count sensor. Either way, I can't imagine there is much in it. On the lens front, the 35-70mm is affordable and quite light and compact for a medium format lens. It's good as well.

On the used market, the Fuji 50MP bodies are a very similar price to the A7r4. The fpL is slightly cheaper, but that is for the bare body. It's interesting that you can get medium format cameras for around the same price as full frame. In L mount, the S1r is about the same price as the fpL and it is an excellent camera.

With this pricing I still personally can't see the appeal of the fp cameras, unless you absolutely must have small size at the cost of everything else. But some people seem taken by them, so I guess there is a camera for everyone.

I can't see any significant difference between the test images from cameras with 24 MP APS-C sensors vs those with 24 MP full-frame sensors, so I bet the image quality from the fp L is actually better than the Fuji 50 MP cameras . . . at least up to about ISO 400 anyway.

I suppose the DPR test chart allows some kind of test of this...

EDIT: Similar detail, the GFX50 a little crisper but with more aliasing.

- you need to look at the GFX50R or GFX50SII as DPR used the correct lens (the 120mm macro).

The GFX50S results (-the first GFX camera to be launched) used the first GF lens - the GF63mm - which does not perform that well at close distances.

So select GFX50R or GFX50SII when comparing.

I know very little about the fp L or any Fuji camera but, for me, the ultimate camera comparison is done with the same lens, good or not.

Goodbye to the variable of lens quality ...

adegroot wrote:

I might consider the FPL.

But: I have scoured photos on the internet, and they seem sharp, but not supersharp to my eyes. Am I wrong? What is the largest print you have made that wowed you?

Sharp photo does not equal good photo!  How sharp is sharp?