GFX100RF Lens

[AshleyMC]

I received my GFX100RF on April 24 but was too busy to use it right away. May 13 was when image 00001 was recorded on the memory cards.

Five weeks in, and the RF continues to bring joy to my photography.

I recently took a portrait of a surfer – at F4, in 4:3 61MP format (45mm crop) – showing his face, upper body, arms, thighs, and most of the surf board held horizontally.

I inspected the JPG image afterward and was impressed by the lens performance when viewing the head portion, 2000 x 1500 pixels cropped.

Thanks for looking.

 

[LesCordes]

I received my GFX100RF on April 24 but was too busy to use it right away. May 13 was when image 00001 was recorded on the memory cards.

Five weeks in, and the RF continues to bring joy to my photography.

I recently took a portrait of a surfer – at F4, in 4:3 61MP format (45mm crop) – showing his face, upper body, arms, thighs, and most of the surf board held horizontally.

I inspected the JPG image afterward and was impressed by the lens performance when viewing the head portion, 2000 x 1500 pixels cropped.

Thanks for looking.

once again .. totally interesting ..

 

[super_claret]

I received my GFX100RF on April 24 but was too busy to use it right away. May 13 was when image 00001 was recorded on the memory cards.

Five weeks in, and the RF continues to bring joy to my photography.

I recently took a portrait of a surfer – at F4, in 4:3 61MP format (45mm crop) – showing his face, upper body, arms, thighs, and most of the surf board held horizontally.

I inspected the JPG image afterward and was impressed by the lens performance when viewing the head portion, 2000 x 1500 pixels cropped.

Thanks for looking.

I've mentioned before that maybe there is some sample variation at play. My copy is sharp and I have no complaints.

I haven't had chance to get out with the camera for a while due to work but hoping to use it over the weekend.

 

[AshleyMC]

once again .. totally interesting ..

Thanks for your kind words.

 

[AshleyMC]

I've mentioned before that maybe there is some sample variation at play. My copy is sharp and I have no complaints.

The sharp lens on my RF defiinitely provides outstanding service to the 100MP sensor.

I haven't had chance to get out with the camera for a while due to work but hoping to use it over the weekend.

Hope you will have more time to enjoy your RF.

 

[jhunna]

I received my GFX100RF on April 24 but was too busy to use it right away. May 13 was when image 00001 was recorded on the memory cards.

Five weeks in, and the RF continues to bring joy to my photography.

I recently took a portrait of a surfer – at F4, in 4:3 61MP format (45mm crop) – showing his face, upper body, arms, thighs, and most of the surf board held horizontally.

I inspected the JPG image afterward and was impressed by the lens performance when viewing the head portion, 2000 x 1500 pixels cropped.

Thanks for looking.

Love seeing your shots. Was this shot at F4 or at f1.8... who knows? Who cares?





I will add shooting in black and white makes this camera sing. The color is good, but mono shooting makes you focus on the picture and not the other distractions that come with color.

 

[AshleyMC]

Love seeing your shots. Was this shot at F4 or at f1.8... who knows? Who cares?

I will add shooting in black and white makes this camera sing. The color is good, but mono shooting makes you focus on the picture and not the other distractions that come with color.

Thanks for dropping by.

“Who cares?” Dry specs numbers don’t tell much. Debating them in dozens of threads may be entertaining (and keeping DPReview alive). Using the camera in different scenarios and with various settings combinations will bring real satisfaction and practical insights.

Yeah, Acros/Red is my favorite. Most of my keepers are B&W.

The GFX100RF is pure fun.

 

[JimKasson]

Dry specs numbers don’t tell much.

Quantitative, precise, repeatable testing can tell a lot to those capable of understanding the data.

 

[AshleyMC]

Dry specs numbers don’t tell much.

Quantitative, precise, repeatable testing can tell a lot to those capable of understanding the data.

What you wrote totally complements what I wrote.

I have nothing against methodical testing.

 

[JimKasson]

Dry specs numbers don’t tell much.

Quantitative, precise, repeatable testing can tell a lot to those capable of understanding the data.

What you wrote totally complements what I wrote.

I have nothing against methodical testing.

I'm glad we're on the same page here.

 

[UsherFellig]

But what about "Feeeeelings?"

 

[jhunna]

But what about "Feeeeelings?"

Feelings are equally important as measurements to the final product. There is no measurement for "that looks right". Conversely what feels right will have a set of specifications, that may be good to know.

 

[AshleyMC]

But what about "Feeeeelings?"

There are vector spaces for those.

The vector axioms vary according to the number of ‘e’ as you expressed.

 

[JimKasson]

But what about "Feeeeelings?"

Feelings are equally important as measurements to the final product. There is no measurement for "that looks right". Conversely what feels right will have a set of specifications, that may be good to know.

Please give me the specifications for an image or a camera that feels right. That could save me a lot of time.

 

[jhunna]

Do you have the uncropped version of this file to share?

This is shot is a wonderful example of what this camera "should not be able to produce"

 

[JimKasson]

Do you have the uncropped version of this file to share?

This is shot is a wonderful example of what this camera "should not be able to produce"

I see nothing in the image that appears to be impossible for the GFX 100 RF.

 

[super_claret]

Dry specs numbers don’t tell much.

Quantitative, precise, repeatable testing can tell a lot to those capable of understanding the data.

Jim, is there any way of quantifying “stellar” or in the RF’s case “less than stellar”?

 

[jhunna]

But what about "Feeeeelings?"

Feelings are equally important as measurements to the final product. There is no measurement for "that looks right". Conversely what feels right will have a set of specifications, that may be good to know.

Please give me the specifications for an image or a camera that feels right. That could save me a lot of time.

That's not how that works. Once you have an image or a camera that feels right, then you can take the specifications. There are 8 billion feelings in this world... I can only give you mine as an example.

This is but one, but for me I prefer that the viewfinders in my camera are in the upper left corner on the back of the camera. How do I know this? I have used other cameras with a different specification, that did not feel as good.

You can pick up something you like, then map the specs.

 

[jhunna]

Do you have the uncropped version of this file to share?

This is shot is a wonderful example of what this camera "should not be able to produce"

I see nothing in the image that appears to be impossible for the GFX 100 RF.

Neither do I, but others have written that this style of portrait shooting, should not be possible.

 

[AshleyMC]

Do you have the uncropped version of this file to share?

If I could, I would have shared a downsampled image of the full-size original in the OP.

This is shot is a wonderful example of what this camera "should not be able to produce"

The GFX100RF, with its fixed 35mm F4 lens, may seem “toyish” or “not capable enough” to certain people who talk about it.

But, hey, you forgot to mention the person taking that shot with the RF! Not fair!