Help with a different way to look at the GFX100RF

[jhunna]

I respect your knowledge, but like I said earlier, if you guys are correcting each other I don't stand a chance.

I don't see the point of that remark.

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion. I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

 

[JimKasson]

I respect your knowledge, but like I said earlier, if you guys are correcting each other I don't stand a chance.

I don't see the point of that remark.

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion. I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

First, I never corrected you about the dpi/ppi confusion. I corrected Steve.

Second, you are never going to eliminate thread drift. I recommend embracing it. Steve's calculation are apropos, after the correction. You could learn something from them, after the correction.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[jhunna]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

This is what I was seeing with my test shots I posted earlier in this thread. I had not seen heard it mentioned this way. But the lower (finer, cleaner) noise is retained even when cropped.to lower resolutions.

Jim's mentioned this before, but I think it's an underappreciated point: if you shoot a scene on FF at f/3.2, you can shoot the same scene at f/4 on this MF sensor with a correspondingly longer (about 25% longer) shutter speed or by adding more light at the same shutter speed, you will get more exposure with lower levels of noise in your photo. Any situation where you would have shot it on FF at f/3.2 or higher f numbers, the RF can beat the FF sensor.

This makes sense.

So landscapers, flash photographers who have enough power, perhaps deeper DoF cityscape and street photographers can get technically better photos on the RF. People who rely on DoF to get isolation, not so much. (And those people should learn the 4-5 other ways to isolate a subject anyway which they can then use on any camera and lens.)

I love shooting portraiture on FF, but find that I am shooting it at f2.8 so f3.2 is close enough to get the look I want. But if I really want to separate the subject I will use one of several technics to do so using , light, colors, vignetting, etc ..).

Bravo excellent post and stated far better than I did with pictures and commentary.

 

[jhunna]

I respect your knowledge, but like I said earlier, if you guys are correcting each other I don't stand a chance.

I don't see the point of that remark.

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion. I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

First, I never corrected you about the dpi/ppi confusion. I corrected Steve.

That was the point you were correcting the other experts. No one is spared.

Second, you are never going to eliminate thread drift. I recommend embracing it. Steve's calculation are apropos, after the correction. You could learn something from them, after the correction.

I get that, but how we went from sensor noise to printing specs just seemed to far afield. I can't stop you from continuing this part of the diversion on this, but I am done. I understand your points, but I am going back to the regularly scheduled topic. ;-)

 

[Doppler9000]

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion.

You are confusing two distinct issues here. There is no problem whatsoever discussing nonstandard techniques, art, or anything else like that. I invite you to look through Jim’s portfolios, where you will see wonderful examples of nonstandard technique employed for artistic purpose.

Any claims made, however, are subject to discussions of facts, and physics, etc. Elsewhere on the forum you have written that you don’t believe in things like “iron laws”, and that you believe technology can overcome limits imposed by physics. Even if this is true in the long run, it is not in the short and intermediate time frames. Perhaps some day we will have small, fast, sharp lenses. We aren’t going to have them tomorrow, however, regardless of how much we might wish.

I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

 

[Doppler9000]

I respect your knowledge, but like I said earlier, if you guys are correcting each other I don't stand a chance.

I don't see the point of that remark.

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion. I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

First, I never corrected you about the dpi/ppi confusion. I corrected Steve.

That was the point you were correcting the other experts. No one is spared.

Second, you are never going to eliminate thread drift. I recommend embracing it. Steve's calculation are apropos, after the correction. You could learn something from them, after the correction.

I get that, but how we went from sensor noise to printing specs just seemed to far afield. I can't stop you from continuing this part of the diversion on this, but I am done. I understand your points, but I am going back to the regularly scheduled topic. ;-)

To remind, the table that Steve created framed the resolution of different ‘digital’ focal lengths in terms of printed output at 300 PPI, which is a standard threshold of very high print quality. He made a slip with regard to the units.

The forum is a resource that is viewed by many. Pointing out mistakes like this so that future forum-readers are not lead astray seems prudent to me. How can you possibly argue that it is inappropriate? It isn’t even off-topic.

 

[Rich42]

I had a decent look and play with the Fuji today at The Fujifilm store in London.

First impressions are of a nicely-built camera but not to the build -level of the Q3.

Unusual proportions do make it look a little like an Instax but it feels good in the hand and has very nice EVF which is slightly larger than the Q3's

The lack of Ibis or OIS is not a big deal for me and the format dial was useful and interesting.

The biggest difference I noticed was the 4:3 format Vs the Q3's 3:2. I am more used to the latter so prefer it. Using the Fuji at 3:2 takes it to 90mp which is still huge of course.

It looks like Raw file size is about 100mb.

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

I take a good number of shots close up at F1.7 on the Q so a big plus for the Q3 here.

Nice camera but I will stick to the Q3.

I think your reaction is going to be be a "popular" one.

I agree. Lately I've been shooting just about everything wide open. I know sometimes the super blurry background gets a little overdone but, it's a nice option. I was just working on a photo that I shot stopped down a bit. The exif is wrong, I think it was at f5.6. Forget IBIS and AF. This one was just focused at a set distance and shot from the hip. Honing my street skills, sort of, and thinking more about the image than how pixel peeping sharp it is.

I think the new FX will be nice for this type of shooting.

And about aspect ratios. This was a 3x2 camera but I still tend to crop a lot to 4x3.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I agreed with JNK 100 that the choice between a Q3 and the new GFX100 RF would go to the Leica.

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[Doppler9000]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

This is what I was seeing with my test shots I posted earlier in this thread. I had not seen heard it mentioned this way. But the lower (finer, cleaner) noise is retained even when cropped.to lower resolutions.

Are you resizing the images or leaving the cropped images smaller?

 

[JimKasson]

I respect your knowledge, but like I said earlier, if you guys are correcting each other I don't stand a chance.

I don't see the point of that remark.

The point is sometimes we just want to talk about a nonstandard technique we are trying, or the graphical, artistic side of photography, without it turning into a technical diversion. I never had a chance of engaging in the original spirit of the thread, if you are going to correct people who you know, know they made the mistake.

Look how many of these Medium Format threads turn into something way off from the original intent. Like this one ...

First, I never corrected you about the dpi/ppi confusion. I corrected Steve.

That was the point you were correcting the other experts. No one is spared.

Steve made an error. He has acknowledged that. Now that we understand what he was trying to say, the numbers he posted are relevant to the usage of cropped photos from the 100 MP sensor (Thank you, Steve). Do you not understand that?

Second, you are never going to eliminate thread drift. I recommend embracing it. Steve's calculation are apropos, after the correction. You could learn something from them, after the correction.

I get that, but how we went from sensor noise to printing specs just seemed to far afield.

There is a direct relationship between sensor resolution and print size and sensor noise and print size. Do you not understand that there is such a relationship?

I can't stop you from continuing this part of the diversion on this, but I am done. I understand your points, but I am going back to the regularly scheduled topic. ;-)

 

[jhunna]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

This is what I was seeing with my test shots I posted earlier in this thread. I had not seen heard it mentioned this way. But the lower (finer, cleaner) noise is retained even when cropped.to lower resolutions.

Are you resizing the images or leaving the cropped images smaller?

Yes. Any and all combinations of resizing/cropping depending on my needs.

 

[SrMi]

Just been looking through my 2008 released Sigma DP1 28mm equivalent fixed lens f/4 camera photos I took 2010 2011. Surprised to find some 1/15 1/20 handheld landscapes in there amidst the mist. Was a pretty much ISO100 camera.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1

If I had a 100Rf I'd probably revisit several places all of them local to me I photographed 2008-2012.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Just been looking through my 2008 released Sigma DP1 28mm equivalent fixed lens f/4 camera photos I took 2010 2011. Surprised to find some 1/15 1/20 handheld landscapes in there amidst the mist. Was a pretty much ISO100 camera.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1

If I had a 100Rf I'd probably revisit several places all of them local to me I photographed 2008-2012.

Note that blur from slow shutter speed does not go suddenly from 0% to 100%. Instead, the probablity to have a sharp image starts decreasing from 100%. Depending on the situation, some may be happy with 50% sharp images, but some expect 100% sharp images (where camera body shake is relevant).

Ashley Morrison commercial photogrpahs published in magazines Ashley shares on this Dpr MF forum for those I'd want as sharp as Ashley makes them if I was photographing.

Benjamin Karanek Elle Vogue photogrpahs Benjamin shares on this Dpr MF forum I'd want as sharp as Benjamin makes them if I was photographing.

Product photography various architectural photogrpahy I'd want as sharp as possible.

Also for various macro, various birds animals critters I'd want as sharp as possible (unless I was going for an artistic look).

Having said this there are just as many styles of photography where 100% sharpness unncessary.

Worthwhile recognising hundreds if not thousands of Iconic photogrpahs from acclaimed photographers wouldn't pass the 100% sharpness.

To just look at sharpness is to limit, is to miss out on several avenues of photography.

[ o ]

Then there's Steadiness.

Worthwhile recognising Sharpness depends on more factors than Steadiness.

An image I take on a digital camera can be Steady yet Not really sharp due to factors as : the sensor the lens used the f/ stop used the ISO the atmospheric conditions.

(My Foveon Sigma DP1 28/4 vs my Oly E-P1 m4/3 I was photographing with at the same time in 2011 is an example of Sharpness vs Steadiness. My Oly m4/3 was Steady due to IBIS, my Sigma DP1 Sharper due to its Foveon sensor its lens yet only when my Foveon Sigma kept at ISO100 at higher ISO this Foveon Sigma sharpness advantage disappeared, and only in favourable atmospheric conditions .... in mist the mist became an equalizer where the Foveon Sigma sharpnes advantage disappeared).

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[JNK 100]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

Jim's mentioned this before, but I think it's an underappreciated point: if you shoot a scene on FF at f/3.2, you can shoot the same scene at f/4 on this MF sensor with a correspondingly longer (about 25% longer) shutter speed or by adding more light at the same shutter speed, you will get more exposure with lower levels of noise in your photo. Any situation where you would have shot it on FF at f/3.2 or higher f numbers, the RF can beat the FF sensor.

So landscapers, flash photographers who have enough power, perhaps deeper DoF cityscape and street photographers can get technically better photos on the RF. People who rely on DoF to get isolation, not so much. (And those people should learn the 4-5 other ways to isolate a subject anyway which they can then use on any camera and lens.)

 

[Doppler9000]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

This is what I was seeing with my test shots I posted earlier in this thread. I had not seen heard it mentioned this way. But the lower (finer, cleaner) noise is retained even when cropped.to lower resolutions.

Are you resizing the images or leaving the cropped images smaller?

Yes. Any and all combinations of resizing/cropping depending on my needs.

If you are enlarging your images, you are also enlarging the noise. There is no way to increase magnification and retain file quality, all else equal.

 

[jhunna]

I can say though that the dof of field is noticeably greater with the Fuji which I think is equivalent to F3.2 in FF terms.

Putting aside the 100MP resolution, one place where the RF will win with its "slow" lens is any situation where you can set the same DoF as a smaller sensor, but you can also increase your exposure, will get you up to 2/3 stop lower noise compared to a full frame sensor.

This is what I was seeing with my test shots I posted earlier in this thread. I had not seen heard it mentioned this way. But the lower (finer, cleaner) noise is retained even when cropped.to lower resolutions.

Are you resizing the images or leaving the cropped images smaller?

Yes. Any and all combinations of resizing/cropping depending on my needs.

If you are enlarging your images, you are also enlarging the noise. There is no way to increase magnification and retain file quality, all else equal.

Ok

 

[Gandolphi]

Think BIG Jim…

or

think less ink

Rather than including arbitrary and/or misleading sensor size references, the inimitable Steve Hendrix from Capture One posted the followingtable :

35mm = 11648 x 8736 | 102mp | 39" x 29"print @ 300dpi
45mm = 9056 x 6792 | 62mp | 30" x 23"print @ 300dpi
63mm = 6448 x 4836 | 31mp | 21" x 16"print @ 300dpi
85mm = 5120 x 3840 | 20mp | 17" x 13"print @ 300dpi

I think he must mean ppi, not dpi.

 

[MoreorLess]

Just been looking through my 2008 released Sigma DP1 28mm equivalent fixed lens f/4 camera photos I took 2010 2011. Surprised to find some 1/15 1/20 handheld landscapes in there amidst the mist. Was a pretty much ISO100 camera.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1

If I had a 100Rf I'd probably revisit several places all of them local to me I photographed 2008-2012.

I do tend to think fuji is working against there own(not just them of course) marketing a bit here, IBIS has been sold so strongly over the last few years I think the need for it has become a bit overstated.

Not that it doesnt have its uses of course but for a 28mm equivalent FOV I think your getting into fairly dark conditions before IBIS will start to make an impact