Firmware 1.80 released for Fringer EF-GFX Pro

[ptambori]

If possible, I'd love to see the comparison images. I’m mostly concerned about edge sharpness on the EF. Also, is the weight you mentioned including the fringer adapter?

Hi fcracer
Yes, it was always about the total weight: so with lenshood, with fringer; in the GFX100II with battery grip and 2 batteries (in the GFX I didn't do a battery to lower the weight a bit; and you would have to remove L-plate and battery grip every time to change the battery).
As you can see from my thread with the link below, my "image processing skills" are unfortunately not at world-class level, so I will try to upload the RAWs. I won't do it in this thread as I want to select the images that had the most similar settings first.
As you can see, my "tests" are far from scientific, but that's not necessary for my purposes: I can see whether an image is sharp or not even without meticulous analysis.
Well, I'll get back to you soon.
Ah, and you can find my 2nd conclusion in the 2nd link.
best regards, ptambori

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67683581

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67690256

 

[ptambori]

If possible, I'd love to see the comparison images. I’m mostly concerned about edge sharpness on the EF. Also, is the weight you mentioned including the fringer adapter?

Hi fcracer
Yes, it was always about the total weight: so with lenshood, with fringer; in the GFX100II with battery grip and 2 batteries (in the GFX I didn't do a battery to lower the weight a bit; and you would have to remove L-plate and battery grip every time to change the battery).
As you can see from my thread with the link below, my "image processing skills" are unfortunately not at world-class level, so I will try to upload the RAWs. I won't do it in this thread as I want to select the images that had the most similar settings first.
As you can see, my "tests" are far from scientific, but that's not necessary for my purposes: I can see whether an image is sharp or not even without meticulous analysis.
Well, I'll get back to you soon.
Ah, and you can find my 2nd conclusion in the 2nd link.
best regards, ptambori

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67683581

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67690256

I have now selected 4 RAW images; No. 3+4 can at best be "representative", as they were taken with the same ISO number; No. 1+2 are nevertheless interesting, as they certainly give a "first" impression.
Why did I shoot the pictures so haphazardly: to be honest, I assumed that the Fringer-EF100-400 combination was (still) unusable (in the first test, however, I still had the old Fringer version AND had not removed the rear baffle).
As the pictures look now, the Fringer - EF100-400 combination is a very serious competitor to the GF100-200. I will test the GF250 (if time permits) next weekend (then with more comparable ISO numbers and probably again with the GF100-200).
My personal preliminary conclusion:
The EF100-400 + Fringer is at least on a par with the GF100-200, as it is much more versatile up to 400, but unfortunately also much heavier.
If the EF100-400 + Fringer combination can now also keep up with the GF250, these two GF lenses will probably be consigned to the "paperweight" department.

Attention: unforunately, it seem to be impossible to upload RAW-Files:

the following message appears and does not go away:



So I will need some more time to process the mentionded RAWs.

If anyone knows how to upload >100MB raw files, please let me know.

 

[ptambori]

If possible, I'd love to see the comparison images. I’m mostly concerned about edge sharpness on the EF. Also, is the weight you mentioned including the fringer adapter?

Hi fcracer
Yes, it was always about the total weight: so with lenshood, with fringer; in the GFX100II with battery grip and 2 batteries (in the GFX I didn't do a battery to lower the weight a bit; and you would have to remove L-plate and battery grip every time to change the battery).
As you can see from my thread with the link below, my "image processing skills" are unfortunately not at world-class level, so I will try to upload the RAWs. I won't do it in this thread as I want to select the images that had the most similar settings first.
As you can see, my "tests" are far from scientific, but that's not necessary for my purposes: I can see whether an image is sharp or not even without meticulous analysis.
Well, I'll get back to you soon.
Ah, and you can find my 2nd conclusion in the 2nd link.
best regards, ptambori

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67683581

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67690256

I have now selected 4 RAW images; No. 3+4 can at best be "representative", as they were taken with the same ISO number; No. 1+2 are nevertheless interesting, as they certainly give a "first" impression.
Why did I shoot the pictures so haphazardly: to be honest, I assumed that the Fringer-EF100-400 combination was (still) unusable (in the first test, however, I still had the old Fringer version AND had not removed the rear baffle).
As the pictures look now, the Fringer - EF100-400 combination is a very serious competitor to the GF100-200. I will test the GF250 (if time permits) next weekend (then with more comparable ISO numbers and probably again with the GF100-200).
My personal preliminary conclusion:
The EF100-400 + Fringer is at least on a par with the GF100-200, as it is much more versatile up to 400, but unfortunately also much heavier.
If the EF100-400 + Fringer combination can now also keep up with the GF250, these two GF lenses will probably be consigned to the "paperweight" department.

Attention: unforunately, it seem to be impossible to upload RAW-Files:

the following message appears and does not go away:



So I will need some more time to process the mentionded RAWs.

If anyone knows how to upload >100MB raw files, please let me know.

I have just compared a few pictures: Fringer adapter (version BEFORE 1.80) with EF100-400 @400mm (and rear baffle not removed) with today's pictures (Fringer version V 1.80, baffle removed).
Conclusion: the combination of Fringer adapter version 1.80 with EF100-400 (with rear baffle removed) is now so good that it will completely replace the GF100-200 (definitely decided today).
My back / cervical spine / right wrist (which has to constantly lift the 3.5kg onto a monopod) will not be happy.
But I can only quote the following:
"Tu trembles, carcasse, mais tu tremblerais bien davantage si tu savais où je vais te mener ! "

 

[Manzur Fahim]

If possible, I'd love to see the comparison images. I’m mostly concerned about edge sharpness on the EF. Also, is the weight you mentioned including the fringer adapter?

Hi fcracer
Yes, it was always about the total weight: so with lenshood, with fringer; in the GFX100II with battery grip and 2 batteries (in the GFX I didn't do a battery to lower the weight a bit; and you would have to remove L-plate and battery grip every time to change the battery).
As you can see from my thread with the link below, my "image processing skills" are unfortunately not at world-class level, so I will try to upload the RAWs. I won't do it in this thread as I want to select the images that had the most similar settings first.
As you can see, my "tests" are far from scientific, but that's not necessary for my purposes: I can see whether an image is sharp or not even without meticulous analysis.
Well, I'll get back to you soon.
Ah, and you can find my 2nd conclusion in the 2nd link.
best regards, ptambori

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67683581

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67690256

I have now selected 4 RAW images; No. 3+4 can at best be "representative", as they were taken with the same ISO number; No. 1+2 are nevertheless interesting, as they certainly give a "first" impression.
Why did I shoot the pictures so haphazardly: to be honest, I assumed that the Fringer-EF100-400 combination was (still) unusable (in the first test, however, I still had the old Fringer version AND had not removed the rear baffle).
As the pictures look now, the Fringer - EF100-400 combination is a very serious competitor to the GF100-200. I will test the GF250 (if time permits) next weekend (then with more comparable ISO numbers and probably again with the GF100-200).
My personal preliminary conclusion:
The EF100-400 + Fringer is at least on a par with the GF100-200, as it is much more versatile up to 400, but unfortunately also much heavier.
If the EF100-400 + Fringer combination can now also keep up with the GF250, these two GF lenses will probably be consigned to the "paperweight" department.

Attention: unforunately, it seem to be impossible to upload RAW-Files:

the following message appears and does not go away:



So I will need some more time to process the mentionded RAWs.

If anyone knows how to upload >100MB raw files, please let me know.

The Medium Format Repository I created can use these comparison files. You can upload there if you want. It'd be nice to have the comparison between these two lenses. Just put all the files with correct name in a folder, and then drag the folder to upload:

http://u.pc.cd/2ad

It is a cloud site, like dropbox, so it will ask you to sign up / login. It is safe to do so.

--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

 

[ptambori]

If possible, I'd love to see the comparison images. I’m mostly concerned about edge sharpness on the EF. Also, is the weight you mentioned including the fringer adapter?

Hi fcracer
Yes, it was always about the total weight: so with lenshood, with fringer; in the GFX100II with battery grip and 2 batteries (in the GFX I didn't do a battery to lower the weight a bit; and you would have to remove L-plate and battery grip every time to change the battery).
As you can see from my thread with the link below, my "image processing skills" are unfortunately not at world-class level, so I will try to upload the RAWs. I won't do it in this thread as I want to select the images that had the most similar settings first.
As you can see, my "tests" are far from scientific, but that's not necessary for my purposes: I can see whether an image is sharp or not even without meticulous analysis.
Well, I'll get back to you soon.
Ah, and you can find my 2nd conclusion in the 2nd link.
best regards, ptambori

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67683581

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67690256

I have now selected 4 RAW images; No. 3+4 can at best be "representative", as they were taken with the same ISO number; No. 1+2 are nevertheless interesting, as they certainly give a "first" impression.
Why did I shoot the pictures so haphazardly: to be honest, I assumed that the Fringer-EF100-400 combination was (still) unusable (in the first test, however, I still had the old Fringer version AND had not removed the rear baffle).
As the pictures look now, the Fringer - EF100-400 combination is a very serious competitor to the GF100-200. I will test the GF250 (if time permits) next weekend (then with more comparable ISO numbers and probably again with the GF100-200).
My personal preliminary conclusion:
The EF100-400 + Fringer is at least on a par with the GF100-200, as it is much more versatile up to 400, but unfortunately also much heavier.
If the EF100-400 + Fringer combination can now also keep up with the GF250, these two GF lenses will probably be consigned to the "paperweight" department.

Attention: unforunately, it seem to be impossible to upload RAW-Files:

the following message appears and does not go away:



So I will need some more time to process the mentionded RAWs.

If anyone knows how to upload >100MB raw files, please let me know.

The Medium Format Repository I created can use these comparison files. You can upload there if you want. It'd be nice to have the comparison between these two lenses. Just put all the files with correct name in a folder, and then drag the folder to upload:

http://u.pc.cd/2ad
It is a cloud site, like dropbox, so it will ask you to sign up / login. It is safe to do so.

Hi Manzur Fahim
I have just uploaded the 4 files.
The images 1+2 are to be compared, the file name indicates what is being compared (e.g. 1.: EF100-400 with focal length 200 and ISO 80).
Yes, I know, I shot around a bit at first, set it to program automatic and saw what came out. So 1+2 compares ISO80 on the EF100-400 with ISO200 on the GF100-200. Well, for me the first impression was interesting, can the EF even come close to keeping up.
Comparison 3+4 is more interesting: both at ISO 200.
And for me the most interesting was the
EF100-400 at 400, as the vignetting was catastrophic in the last test with the previous Fringer version.
Now, with version 1.8 and "baffle removed", the pictures are great.
If possible, I will make a better attempt next weekend (perhaps on the Rigi in Switzerland if the weather is nice), then with a 3-legged tripod and, above all, I will compare the GF250 (possibly also with TC1.4) with the EF100-400.
For the time being, the EF will replace the GF100-200, perhaps also the GF250.

 

[fcracer]

Thank you so much for the images. I'll have a look later this week. Thanks again!

 

[Manzur Fahim]

Hi Manzur Fahim
I have just uploaded the 4 files.
The images 1+2 are to be compared, the file name indicates what is being compared (e.g. 1.: EF100-400 with focal length 200 and ISO 80).
Yes, I know, I shot around a bit at first, set it to program automatic and saw what came out. So 1+2 compares ISO80 on the EF100-400 with ISO200 on the GF100-200. Well, for me the first impression was interesting, can the EF even come close to keeping up.
Comparison 3+4 is more interesting: both at ISO 200.
And for me the most interesting was the
EF100-400 at 400, as the vignetting was catastrophic in the last test with the previous Fringer version.
Now, with version 1.8 and "baffle removed", the pictures are great.
If possible, I will make a better attempt next weekend (perhaps on the Rigi in Switzerland if the weather is nice), then with a 3-legged tripod and, above all, I will compare the GF250 (possibly also with TC1.4) with the EF100-400.
For the time being, the EF will replace the GF100-200, perhaps also the GF250.

Thank you for the uploads, and sorry for the late response.

I was just looking at image 3 and 4, and I wonder if you have used single point AF and where the focus point was? The 100-200mm image looks like it was focused at the bottom part of the image (more detailed than 100-400), and the EF 100-400mm image was focused higher (further at the frame, more detailed than 100-200).













The last capture was after I tried to balance the exposure, 1.3 stop down on 100-200mm image. 100-200mm is sharper here.

Can you maybe take some samples at same EV, using a single point focus at the same spot for both lenses?

image 1+2 are different images, the canon looks sharper, but again without knowing where the focus points are, a little difficult to compare.

--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

 

[ptambori]

Hi Manzur Fahim
I have just uploaded the 4 files.
The images 1+2 are to be compared, the file name indicates what is being compared (e.g. 1.: EF100-400 with focal length 200 and ISO 80).
Yes, I know, I shot around a bit at first, set it to program automatic and saw what came out. So 1+2 compares ISO80 on the EF100-400 with ISO200 on the GF100-200. Well, for me the first impression was interesting, can the EF even come close to keeping up.
Comparison 3+4 is more interesting: both at ISO 200.
And for me the most interesting was the
EF100-400 at 400, as the vignetting was catastrophic in the last test with the previous Fringer version.
Now, with version 1.8 and "baffle removed", the pictures are great.
If possible, I will make a better attempt next weekend (perhaps on the Rigi in Switzerland if the weather is nice), then with a 3-legged tripod and, above all, I will compare the GF250 (possibly also with TC1.4) with the EF100-400.
For the time being, the EF will replace the GF100-200, perhaps also the GF250.

Thank you for the uploads, and sorry for the late response.

I was just looking at image 3 and 4, and I wonder if you have used single point AF and where the focus point was? The 100-200mm image looks like it was focused at the bottom part of the image (more detailed than 100-400), and the EF 100-400mm image was focused higher (further at the frame, more detailed than 100-200).







The last capture was after I tried to balance the exposure, 1.3 stop down on 100-200mm image. 100-200mm is sharper here.

Can you maybe take some samples at same EV, using a single point focus at the same spot for both lenses?
image 1+2 are different images, the canon looks sharper, but again without knowing where the focus points are, a little difficult to compare.

Hi Manzur Fahim
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I used single point focus for both; but on a monopod it is a bit difficult to keep the focus always accurate (especially with the MF camera; with the EOS1DXIII it was much easier, as a small dot was actually visible in the viewfinder; with the GFX you only see the small rectangle, and then you don't really know what it is focussing on).
Well, tomorrow we'll probably have a bit of sun again in this country: I might take a trip and repeat the tests, this time with a tripod. And I'll do my best to make the pictures really comparable.
The question of which of the two lenses is sharper, the GF100-200 versus the EF100-400, is still bothering me a bit; taking the GF100-200 on holiday would be more appealing in itself, as it's lighter and with TC1.4 it's also expandable enough.
I'll get back to you after the new test shots.