Help with a different way to look at the GFX100RF

[jturn00]

I've been lurking trying to understand if the GFX100RF right for me. I was already looking to upgrade my x-pro2 (no IBIS) to get something that could be better for lower light. In the recent announcement (and as part of that "upgrade"). I use SOOC and film simulations.

Rather than go into all the sensor IBIS discussions that have been here, I wanted to get thoughts on Digital - Teleconverters for the cameras. X100VI, GFX100RF. (or others).

The 100VI can digital crop and give various ranges (35, 50, 70) vs GFX100RF which has I believe 28, 35, 63, 80?). To get the wider angle 28mm on the 100VI, I would end up needing to get a wide angle converter. The GFX has not other options. but does have the aspect ratios.

The main attraction of the GFX is the aspect dial. (I've been supplementing my x-pro kit with my iPhone to get those other aspect ratios.).

My current kit is only uses the apc range 18-55. (the kit zoom lens of 2.8-4 ) supplemented and mainly using 23mm and 35mm prime.

 

[jhunna]

I've been lurking trying to understand if the GFX100RF right for me. I was already looking to upgrade my x-pro2 (no IBIS) to get something that could be better for lower light. In the recent announcement (and as part of that "upgrade"). I use SOOC and film simulations.

Rather than go into all the sensor IBIS discussions that have been here, I wanted to get thoughts on Digital - Teleconverters for the cameras. X100VI, GFX100RF. (or others).

The 100VI can digital crop and give various ranges (35, 50, 70) vs GFX100RF which has I believe 28, 35, 63, 80?). To get the wider angle 28mm on the 100VI, I would end up needing to get a wide angle converter. The GFX has not other options. but does have the aspect ratios.

The main attraction of the GFX is the aspect dial. (I've been supplementing my x-pro kit with my iPhone to get those other aspect ratios.).

My current kit is only uses the apc range 18-55. (the kit zoom lens of 2.8-4 ) supplemented and mainly using 23mm and 35mm prime.

You say help, but I don't see a question. What are you after?

Regarding teleconvertors I think that is all the RF will need to be that light weight travel setup. I would love a FF equivilent 50mm tcl and a 24mm tcl. Even at f4, with 50mm, I would be able to get additional compression to give me that portrait look that will take effort to reproduce with the 28mm.

 

[The Hat]

People only believe what they already know, so if you are asking if it's the right camera for you, probably you are only looking some reason to justify your buy..

if you like it just buy it, if you can afford it.

for sure it's a camera capable of great quality, personally i see MF cameras as cameras designed for optimum resolution and quality and I find it to be a nonsense a "point and shoot" travel camera at that price and with a so few use cases, but it's a very nice camera, no doubt.

 

[jturn00]

I had written really quickly and forgot to add a direct question, but now seeing comments I think I wanted to hear one's opinion on the use of the digital teleconverter and hypothetical (or experience from those that may have gotten hands on it) around the digital teleconverter.

 

[SrMi]

I had written really quickly and forgot to add a direct question, but now seeing comments I think I wanted to hear one's opinion on the use of the digital teleconverter and hypothetical (or experience from those that may have gotten hands on it) around the digital teleconverter.

My experience is based on Leica Q cameras, which have 60MP and a "digital teleconverter."

I am skeptical about zoom-by-crop as it loses both resolution and DR, two significant advantages of medium-format sensors.

I crop when necessary but always intend to shoot with the native focal length.

 

[Matt2134]

I've been lurking trying to understand if the GFX100RF right for me. I was already looking to upgrade my x-pro2 (no IBIS) to get something that could be better for lower light. In the recent announcement (and as part of that "upgrade"). I use SOOC and film simulations.

Rather than go into all the sensor IBIS discussions that have been here, I wanted to get thoughts on Digital - Teleconverters for the cameras. X100VI, GFX100RF. (or others).

The 100VI can digital crop and give various ranges (35, 50, 70) vs GFX100RF which has I believe 28, 35, 63, 80?). To get the wider angle 28mm on the 100VI, I would end up needing to get a wide angle converter. The GFX has not other options. but does have the aspect ratios.

The main attraction of the GFX is the aspect dial. (I've been supplementing my x-pro kit with my iPhone to get those other aspect ratios.).

My current kit is only uses the apc range 18-55. (the kit zoom lens of 2.8-4 ) supplemented and mainly using 23mm and 35mm prime.

I have been looking at the new RF too. There is a lot that appeals to me about it, and though I had initially decided it wasn't for me, I found myself weighing it up more and more.

The ratio dial I really like, and it is clear that the lens used in good conditions is very good.

My biggest issue is that I seem to see a pattern of great quality images in good sunlight, but many of the reviews and samples I look at seem to either have quite obvious motion blur, or the camera is being used in lower light and the required iso bump (from F4/no ibis) is negating the benefit of the sensor.

I think it looks a lovely piece of kit, but I think those things appearing in my photography would frustrate. Maybe some of the motion blur is because of less skilled users, or maybe ibis has made us lazy - but I am not especially skilled and if otherwise decent photographers reviewing on line are producing those end results, I may too, and it leaves me leaning towards not ordering.

All that said, I still admire what Fuji have done, and am sure many people will love owning one. If that is me later on, I think it better if it is a decision made after there is availability to rent one and try one out first hand.

 

[Rich42]

SrMi wrote:

I had written really quickly and forgot to add a direct question, but now seeing comments I think I wanted to hear one's opinion on the use of the digital teleconverter and hypothetical (or experience from those that may have gotten hands on it) around the digital teleconverter.

My experience is based on Leica Q cameras, which have 60MP and a "digital teleconverter."

Wow, marketing hype has already resulted in a new, useless and completely misleading term to instantly pollute the Internet. Mix well with “Equivalence” and I can imagine flame wars of incredible proportion.

I am skeptical about zoom-by-crop as it loses both resolution and DR, two significant advantages of medium-format sensors.

Cropping doesn’t result in loss of DR.

I crop when necessary but always intend to shoot with the native focal length.

 

[spilla]

Just in case you don’t know — you can assign aspect ratio control to a function wheel or button on any gfx camera. If you’re looking for a low light system, you would have more versatility w an IBIS model and one of the f/2.8 lenses.

 

[The Hat]

I do agree with you. A MF camera is designed for optimum resolution and quality, I find a nonsense design the camera for crop modes

 

[The Hat]

My experience is based on Leica Q cameras, which have 60MP and a "digital teleconverter."

Wow, marketing hype has already resulted in a new, useless and completely misleading term to instantly pollute the Internet. Mix well with “Equivalence” and I can imagine flame wars of incredible proportion.

Fujifilm introduced the "digital teleconverter" with the 40mp apsc sensor, in xt5/xh2 models

I am skeptical about zoom-by-crop as it loses both resolution and DR, two significant advantages of medium-format sensors.

Cropping doesn’t result in loss of DR.

Yes cropping and display or printing at the same size result in DR loss. You can clearly see measurements in photonstophoto website.

That's the reason why a bigger sensor, using the same technology and photons size has a wider DR compared to smaller sensors

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

The only cropping I am interested in is what is necessary to print to fit an existing frame size. Such as cropping a little off one dimension to fit a 16x20" frame.

And so I would be completely ignoring the crop mode control on the 100RF.

Stan

 

[SrMi]

I had written really quickly and forgot to add a direct question, but now seeing comments I think I wanted to hear one's opinion on the use of the digital teleconverter and hypothetical (or experience from those that may have gotten hands on it) around the digital teleconverter.

My experience is based on Leica Q cameras, which have 60MP and a "digital teleconverter."

Wow, marketing hype has already resulted in a new, useless and completely misleading term to instantly pollute the Internet. Mix well with “Equivalence” and I can imagine flame wars of incredible proportion.

I am skeptical about zoom-by-crop as it loses both resolution and DR, two significant advantages of medium-format sensors.

Cropping doesn’t result in loss of DR.

Yes, it does. P2P has measured the difference as some FF cameras contain a crop mode (APS-C). A cropped image requires more magnification since DR is not calculated at the pixel level but at the full images with the same output size. More magnification leads to more visible noise, less DR.

Cropping is like shooting with a smaller sensor.

I crop when necessary but always intend to shoot with the native focal length.

 

[SrMi]

My experience is based on Leica Q cameras, which have 60MP and a "digital teleconverter."

Wow, marketing hype has already resulted in a new, useless and completely misleading term to instantly pollute the Internet. Mix well with “Equivalence” and I can imagine flame wars of incredible proportion.

Fujifilm introduced the "digital teleconverter" with the 40mp apsc sensor, in xt5/xh2 models

I am skeptical about zoom-by-crop as it loses both resolution and DR, two significant advantages of medium-format sensors.

Cropping doesn’t result in loss of DR.

Yes cropping and display or printing at the same size result in DR loss. You can clearly see measurements in photonstophoto website.

That's the reason why a bigger sensor, using the same technology and photons size has a wider DR compared to smaller sensors

+1

It is surprising how many experienced photographers are unaware of this effect of cropping. I have been sharing that information on various forums and received considerable pushback.

 

[The Hat]

It is surprising how many experienced photographers are unaware of this effect of cropping. I have been sharing that information on various forums and received considerable pushback.

What I found strange is that anybody knows that "digital zoom" on smartphone reduce the quality, but now it seem well accept on a MF camera costing you 5k....

 

[marc aurel]

It is surprising how many experienced photographers are unaware of this effect of cropping. I have been sharing that information on various forums and received considerable pushback.

What I found strange is that anybody knows that "digital zoom" on smartphone reduce the quality, but now it seem well accept on a MF camera costing you 5k....

Photography equipment is always about compromises to a certain degree.

The level of dynamic range the 44 x 33mm sensor starts from is higher than the smaller formats (as is the resolution). Not as much as some marketing wants to make you believe, but noticable (does anybody have the numbers?). Cropping down one level to about full frame reduces DR to the level of full frame. If that is acceptable depends on the photographer and the use case.

If any loss of DR would be unacceptable then cropping in post would be forbidden :-D

 

[SrMi]

It is surprising how many experienced photographers are unaware of this effect of cropping. I have been sharing that information on various forums and received considerable pushback.

What I found strange is that anybody knows that "digital zoom" on smartphone reduce the quality, but now it seem well accept on a MF camera costing you 5k....

Photography equipment is always about compromises to a certain degree.

The level of dynamic range the 44 x 33mm sensor starts from is higher than the smaller formats (as is the resolution). Not as much as some marketing wants to make you believe, but noticable (does anybody have the numbers?). Cropping down one level to about full frame reduces DR to the level of full frame. If that is acceptable depends on the photographer and the use case.

If any loss of DR would be unacceptable then cropping in post would be forbidden :-D

There is a difference between cropping in the post for creative reasons and the intention to use the camera as a pseudo-50mm camera.

I see nothing wrong with using the digital crop as long as one knows that TINSTAAFL. I'd stick with the focal length native for a camera as I find it sometimes liberating to shoot only with one focal length.

 

[jhunna]

It is surprising how many experienced photographers are unaware of this effect of cropping. I have been sharing that information on various forums and received considerable pushback.

What I found strange is that anybody knows that "digital zoom" on smartphone reduce the quality, but now it seem well accept on a MF camera costing you 5k....

Cropping on the MF sensor puts you so far ahead of the rest of the sensors, that the only person who will realize your photos is cropped is you. (and maybe a few of us on this forum, and we don't really matter anyway ).

The cropping lever is a good idea, I do wish it could have been programmable, but I have no issue with it. It does what it should and that's spark creativity.

 

[jhunna]

If any loss of DR would be unacceptable then cropping in post would be forbidden :-D

There is a difference between cropping in the post for creative reasons and the intention to use the camera as a pseudo-50mm camera.

I see nothing wrong with using the digital crop as long as one knows that TINSTAAFL. I'd stick with the focal length native for a camera as I find it sometimes liberating to shoot only with one focal length.

I think you may not appreciate what Fuji has done here by allowing for the crop in camera. Outside of the MF sensor, Fuji's biggest advantage is that they allow for developing raws in camera in a way I haven't seen anyone replicate. Part of developing raws in camera is to the use of digital crop.

I have been waiting on something like this for a long time, 100MP with a wide lens, that will let me generate the shot I want, at the time of shooting, and still allow me to retain the full 100MP, should I change my mind in post.

I think it is great that Fuji allows both of us to use the camera as we like. (and yes I will be using the 80mm digital zoom).

 

[UsherFellig]

Hi,

The only cropping I am interested in is what is necessary to print to fit an existing frame size. Such as cropping a little off one dimension to fit a 16x20" frame.

And so I would be completely ignoring the crop mode control on the 100RF.

Stan

Unless it's a rare emergency I strive to crop only very thin slices at the sides or top/bottom to get my "compositional feng shui" just so. My own take on all this is that if I want to shoot my favorite prime focal lengths of 40-60mm at APSC or m43 crop I can do that on delightful smaller, lighter cameras I already own or could acquire at a pittance compared to this camera's price tag, or skip APSC and m43 and shoot my favorite focal lengths using primes on my FF stuff, all of which save my analogues has IBIS. There are also my 645 analogue options if I want to shoot medium format on a tripod with no IBIS.

But Fuji appears here to be betting there is a consumer demographic out there who will be delighted to "zoom" at APSC and m43 crops in this camera using that "zoom lever" or "crop lever." I suspect they are correct. This camera won't only be selling to the demographic I myself think it would be great for--namely, serious enthusiasts who will use it with a tripod to shoot at 28mm equivalent using the whole medium format sensor. There's also the 35mm equivalent angle of view, which on this camera will render at about FF crop coverage. I don't like either of those focal lengths enough to pay $5K to shoot this thing on a tripod.

 

[jhunna]

Hi,

The only cropping I am interested in is what is necessary to print to fit an existing frame size. Such as cropping a little off one dimension to fit a 16x20" frame.

And so I would be completely ignoring the crop mode control on the 100RF.

Stan

Unless it's a rare emergency I strive to crop only very thin slices at the sides or top/bottom to get my "compositional feng shui" just so. My own take on all this is that if I want to shoot my favorite prime focal lengths of 40-60mm at APSC or m43 crop I can do that on delightful smaller, lighter cameras I already own or could acquire at a pittance compared to this camera's price tag, or skip APSC and m43 and shoot my favorite focal lengths using primes on my FF stuff, all of which save my analogues has IBIS. There are also my 645 analogue options if I want to shoot medium format on a tripod with no IBIS.

True, but that method also has its draw backs like learning multiple systems. And seeing with a different eye. I think the better argument is to say you can get similar output using FF and a high end zoom lens.

But Fuji appears here to be betting there is a consumer demographic out there who will be delighted to "zoom" at APSC and m43 crops in this camera using that "zoom lever" or "crop lever." I suspect they are correct.

They are. Because once I have my composition. I can resize it in post to cover the same 100MP if needed. There will be some loss detail and DR, but I can pull a printable file from that severe crop.

This camera won't only be selling to the demographic I myself think it would be great for--namely, serious enthusiasts who will use it with a tripod to shoot at 28mm equivalent using the whole medium format sensor.

As the consumer demographic who is ok with m43 cropping, I am equally excited about this aspect of using the camera. The two are not mutually exclusive. I want to do both.

There's also the 35mm equivalent angle of view, which on this camera will render at about FF crop coverage. I don't like either of those focal lengths enough to pay $5K to shoot this thing on a tripod.

Understood. But the handling, etc... are also part of the price. The ability to carry it in a messenger bag every day, to take it to dinner, as sole camera, that will capture a lot of day to day life, and give you the option of cropping. I think Fuji has this one right (would have preferred a faster lens) but I can work with and/or around everything else.