GFX100RF in studio comparison tool

[Lukacs85]

Sorry if it's obvious for most members, I just find the 100RF in studio comparison tool:

Comparison tool

 

[tex]

As I moved the loupe box around I felt like I was seeing different results. Sometimes it compared unfavorably to the 100/100S, sometimes it looked very similar.

 

[Lukacs85]

At RAW iso80 (iso 100 seems better) mode it's quite soft, low contrast, but at least quite consistent corner to corner, surprisingly good corners considering the fact of wide angle pancake lens.

GFX100S images are insane sharp, almost oversharpened, even comaring to IQ4. I'll download the raws later and check in Capture One.

 

[boastar]

Shows pretty much exactly what I saw with the RF we tested. Of course no contest against the GFX100s files with the GF120.

But even factoring in the pancake lens of the RF, the results are disappointing, to me. It’s got the 100mp sensor. We know what that’s capable of. So the lens must be less than stellar, to get such results, as seen in the comparison tool.

 

[emdundronald]

Shows pretty much exactly what I saw with the RF we tested. Of course no contest against the GFX100s files with the GF120.

But even factoring in the pancake lens of the RF, the results are disappointing, to me. It’s got the 100mp sensor. We know what that’s capable of. So the lens must be less than stellar, to get such results, as seen in the comparison tool.

To me it looks almost as if the lens were slightly out of focus, it doesnt seem to be in sharp focus on the chart towards the center, but then what would I know?

Off the top of my head I suspect this is a bad test shot, eg look at the banknote. Then the interesting question becomes how did the shot go bad on an AF camera with main sensor focus.

Edmund

--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

 

[Lukacs85]

Shows pretty much exactly what I saw with the RF we tested. Of course no contest against the GFX100s files with the GF120.

But even factoring in the pancake lens of the RF, the results are disappointing, to me. It’s got the 100mp sensor. We know what that’s capable of. So the lens must be less than stellar, to get such results, as seen in the comparison tool.

You should compare other fixed lens cameras, the 120 f4 size is enormous, even Sigma 85 1.4DN is a quite massive lens. Of course you can compare it to the reference quality, 60 and 100MP sensors with a highest quality lenses how this lenses compare. I agree, there is no contest, you can't replace a massive, over 500g lens with a 150-200g at best pancake. Q3 43 has a kind of sweet spot, but it's bigger than RF's 35 f4, and it's 42mm, not a wide angle, and works on less resolution.

Still I think Fuji should make this camera with a 55mm f2.8 fixed lens variant, event the size is not compact anymore.

 

[tex]

Yes, I thought those 100/100S samples looked odd as well. But I checked all over the test board, and the 100RF wasn't consistently soft---that's what struck me as weird. It was sharper here and there---look at the Beatles bit, for instance---nearly or as sharp as the 100/100S. In that case the lens would account for the difference. I'm not looking at extreme edges, either, but bits well within the frame. The money for instance is sharper than the 2 prints.

 

[Lukacs85]

Leica Q3 43's lens is obviously superior, but it's have optical design advantages, so it's larger too. The highly praised Rx1RII's lens fall far behind, also Q2 is inferior. Unfortunately there is no lens tests, how perform some small FF prime lenses if you build a small travel 60MP camera, like Sony 24G.

 

[jhunna]

Sorry if it's obvious for most members, I just find the 100RF in studio comparison tool:

Comparison tool

I never found this tool useful. Could be me, but how are you able to come to a conclusion about a lens by using it?

I am thinking the only way to get a good idea of what this lens can do is to get well exposed, lowest iso, shot from a tripod. And then upload that RAW file for viewing.

 

[emdundronald]

It would be interesting to have a landscape-distance comparison.

It looks like they shot the test chart at around 1m or so? They speak about 30x focal distance.

Edmund

 

[super_claret]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

 

[jhunna]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

I fixed that by going into manual focus. Seems that it is difficult for the AF, at the lowest aperture, to hone in on the right object at the closest focus limits.

 

[super_claret]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

I fixed that by going into manual focus. Seems that it is difficult for the AF, at the lowest aperture, to hone in on the right object at the closest focus limits.

Interesting, I’ll give that a try and thanks for the suggestion.

 

[JNK 100]

There seems to be a number of people here trying to blame focus-error etc. for their favoured camera not being as sharp in the tool as a camera and lens combo twice the price and much larger.

The 'pancake' lens appears average at best compared to interchangeable MF Fuji lenses but this is to be expected.

The lens on the Leica Q series s is noticeably better as well as being faster.

No one believes the Q lens to be the equal of the M or SL Apo , so why expect the Fuji to be any different?

 

[Lukacs85]

I downloaded the raws in Capture One.

Tell the truth I cheated, GFX100 sharpening 140/0.7, GFX100RF 160/0.7, 100RF contrast is 8. For me this is "good enough" considering the non macro, wide angle pancake lens.



View attachment e009d3437bb64a149356a2980055a7f1.jpg





View attachment 60ff7bb1dc0449a2bdfaf2abdc9800b0.jpg

Sorry I uploaded two of GFX100RF, I corrected..

 

[JimKasson]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

I fixed that by going into manual focus. Seems that it is difficult for the AF, at the lowest aperture, to hone in on the right object at the closest focus limits.

Interesting, I’ll give that a try and thanks for the suggestion.

I would be surprised if DPR used AF for the Studio Scene images.

 

[JNK 100]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

I fixed that by going into manual focus. Seems that it is difficult for the AF, at the lowest aperture, to hone in on the right object at the closest focus limits.

Interesting, I’ll give that a try and thanks for the suggestion.

I would be surprised if DPR used AF for the Studio Scene images.

--

I would be amazed.

https://blog.kasson.com

 

[super_claret]

I don’t understand why they look so naff. I’m really pleased with sharpness and corner performance on my copy.

I did notice that at f4 and closest focus distance, the images are soft but stop down to f5.6, they are excellent. Have to confess that I’ve never based a buying decision on the comparison tool and I very rarely look at it!

I fixed that by going into manual focus. Seems that it is difficult for the AF, at the lowest aperture, to hone in on the right object at the closest focus limits.

Interesting, I’ll give that a try and thanks for the suggestion.

I would be surprised if DPR used AF for the Studio Scene images.

I wasn’t suggesting they did Jim, I was just making the point that my copy is soft at f4 at closest focus distance.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Rather than comparing the 100 RF to GFX 100 series cameras, it makes more sense to me to compare it to other fixed focal length wide angle cameras. Leica Q cameras are often used, which is totally fair. However, there is another option. The Ricoh GR III is a similar use case, and has a roughly comparable field of view.

Of course it's ridiculous to compare a 100 MP camera to a 24 MP camera, right? Still, I was curious.

One important caveat if you do this yourself: from the Studio Scene, the DNG for the Ricoh GR III comes into Lightroom with all sharpening off, so it looks terrible if you don't apply appropriate sharpening.

Long story short, the GFX 100 RF is way better. Shocking! It darned well better be though for the price and given what it is. But the little GR III is remarkably good.

In this first comparison, the GFX 100 RF gets all the advantages. The Studio Scene is at 100%, and I cropped the Ricoh file to 4:3 and uprezzed to the native dimensions of the GF file. The benefits of a sharp lens on a high resolution sensor are obvious, but the Ricoh is not too shabby considering what it is.

100% at 11,648 pixels on the long edge

When we go the other way, the story changes. Here the Studio Scene is still at 100%, but now I down sampled the 100RF to the dimensions of the cropped GR file.

100% at 5,333 pixels on the long edge

What have we learned from this? I would say it's the same old lesson, i.e., your output size matters a heck of a lot. If this is the largest size you'll ever view or print, the Ricoh is looking seriously good. If you're not printing large, an uncropped full resolution image from the 100 RF is overkill and you might be just as happy with a much smaller, lighter and cheaper camera.

 

[JimKasson]

What have we learned from this? I would say it's the same old lesson, i.e., your output size matters a heck of a lot.

Yup.