Help with a different way to look at the GFX100RF

[JNK 100]

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....

To be pedantic: the Fuji does not have a 'digital zoom' as the crops are at fixed points.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

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

No, it’s been going way longer than that. The term was in use for the 26MP XF10, which was released in 2018. I think that was the first Fujifilm camera with that feature, but I’m not sure. I don’t know if any other manufacturers were already using the same term at the time.

The first time I encountered the feature was in the Ricoh GR in 2013 (the camera which Fujifilm seemed to realise they needed to borrow a few more party tricks from when replacing the X70), which had 35 and 50mm-equivalent crops from its 28mm-equivalent lens and 16MP sensor (yes, the 50mm crop was around 6MP) but they didn’t use the term “digital teleconverter”.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

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....

Smartphones start with small sensors and a relatively small amount of light, so cropping makes that already small sensor even smaller and ends up exacerbating problems that are already there. Whereas if you crop in from a 100MP GFX sensor, you’re still looking at a 60MP full frame sensor or a 30MP APS-C sensor, both of which are competitive with top end cameras that produce stunning results. It works because a big 100MP sensor is total overkill for the needs of most people who’d contemplate buying a 100RF, and that’s not true of a phone sensor.

If the number of pixels is the most important thing and cropping in from this sensor is somehow unacceptable, then the Leica Q3 43 must also be unacceptable, because that’s what you get from the 100RF. They both give you a 60MP full frame sensor with a broadly similar field of view. But one of them also gives the option of using a 100MP MF sensor and a wider angle. And it’s the cheaper one!

It’s short-sighted to think that just because a 100MP MF sensor exists, its sole purpose must be to provide 100MP MF images. Its real purpose here is to do the job of several cameras in one compact and lightweight package, and to still produce thoroughly competent images in all cases.

The way to think about this camera is to consider how many of your own shooting situations it can cover with output that’s more than good enough for the job. Anyone who can only start from the thought of the 100MP on that sensor should buy a GFX 100S II instead.

 

[JimKasson]

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.

At same print size it does.

 

[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....

To be pedantic: the Fuji does not have a 'digital zoom' as the crops are at fixed points.

Yes, they have digital primes

 

[The Hat]

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....

Smartphones start with small sensors and a relatively small amount of light, so cropping makes that already small sensor even smaller and ends up exacerbating problems that are already there. Whereas if you crop in from a 100MP GFX sensor, you’re still looking at a 60MP full frame sensor or a 30MP APS-C sensor, both of which are competitive with top end cameras that produce stunning results. It works because a big 100MP sensor is total overkill for the needs of most people who’d contemplate buying a 100RF, and that’s not true of a phone sensor.

If the number of pixels is the most important thing and cropping in from this sensor is somehow unacceptable, then the Leica Q3 43 must also be unacceptable, because that’s what you get from the 100RF. They both give you a 60MP full frame sensor with a broadly similar field of view. But one of them also gives the option of using a 100MP MF sensor and a wider angle. And it’s the cheaper one!

It’s short-sighted to think that just because a 100MP MF sensor exists, its sole purpose must be to provide 100MP MF images. Its real purpose here is to do the job of several cameras in one compact and lightweight package, and to still produce thoroughly competent images in all cases.

The way to think about this camera is to consider how many of your own shooting situations it can cover with output that’s more than good enough for the job. Anyone who can only start from the thought of the 100MP on that sensor should buy a GFX 100S II instead.

Obviously starting with a better quality you will end with better quality.

But using 35mm eq. Crop it's about equivalent to shoot with a FF camera (with a slow lens) and shooting at 50mm crop it's about equivalent to shoot APSC camera and 80mm about like a M43 camera

 

[The Hat]

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

No, it’s been going way longer than that. The term was in use for the 26MP XF10, which was released in 2018.

Good to know

 

[jhunna]

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....

Smartphones start with small sensors and a relatively small amount of light, so cropping makes that already small sensor even smaller and ends up exacerbating problems that are already there. Whereas if you crop in from a 100MP GFX sensor, you’re still looking at a 60MP full frame sensor or a 30MP APS-C sensor, both of which are competitive with top end cameras that produce stunning results. It works because a big 100MP sensor is total overkill for the needs of most people who’d contemplate buying a 100RF, and that’s not true of a phone sensor.

If the number of pixels is the most important thing and cropping in from this sensor is somehow unacceptable, then the Leica Q3 43 must also be unacceptable, because that’s what you get from the 100RF. They both give you a 60MP full frame sensor with a broadly similar field of view. But one of them also gives the option of using a 100MP MF sensor and a wider angle. And it’s the cheaper one!

It’s short-sighted to think that just because a 100MP MF sensor exists, its sole purpose must be to provide 100MP MF images. Its real purpose here is to do the job of several cameras in one compact and lightweight package, and to still produce thoroughly competent images in all cases.

The way to think about this camera is to consider how many of your own shooting situations it can cover with output that’s more than good enough for the job. Anyone who can only start from the thought of the 100MP on that sensor should buy a GFX 100S II instead.

Obviously starting with a better quality you will end with better quality.

But using 35mm eq. Crop it's about equivalent to shoot with a FF camera (with a slow lens) and shooting at 50mm crop it's about equivalent to shoot APSC camera and 80mm about like a M43 camera

Why does that matter? All the formats you listed are used by professionals. It is still good output, especially if the subject is something you care about. It may be a big deal to you, but to me it a feature, especially since it won't prevent you from shooting at 28/4 MF 100MP.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Obviously starting with a better quality you will end with better quality.

But using 35mm eq. Crop it's about equivalent to shoot with a FF camera (with a slow lens) and shooting at 50mm crop it's about equivalent to shoot APSC camera and 80mm about like a M43 camera

Why does that matter? All the formats you listed are used by professionals. It is still good output

Exactly.

At the full frame crop it has more pixels than my current GFX camera, and it’s not like that’s lacking resolution. At the APS-C crop it has more pixels than any of my APS-C cameras. At the Four Thirds crop it has more pixels than my Four Thirds cameras, and one of my APS-C cameras. And all of those have more pixels than my little Ricoh from 2008, which has managed a perfectly decent 1m-square canvas print.

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs, and then it’s really all about which camera fits your usability preferences best. This one looks like it fits me, and it’s because that sensor is what drives that usability, not because I have even the slightest need for 100MP.

 

[SrMi]

Obviously starting with a better quality you will end with better quality.

But using 35mm eq. Crop it's about equivalent to shoot with a FF camera (with a slow lens) and shooting at 50mm crop it's about equivalent to shoot APSC camera and 80mm about like a M43 camera

Why does that matter? All the formats you listed are used by professionals. It is still good output

Exactly.

At the full frame crop it has more pixels than my current GFX camera, and it’s not like that’s lacking resolution. At the APS-C crop it has more pixels than any of my APS-C cameras. At the Four Thirds crop it has more pixels than my Four Thirds cameras, and one of my APS-C cameras. And all of those have more pixels than my little Ricoh from 2008, which has managed a perfectly decent 1m-square canvas print.

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs,

Pixel count is, in most cases, more than sufficient, but the DR is not.

M43 vs MF at ISO 6400.

and then it’s really all about which camera fits your usability preferences best. This one looks like it fits me, and it’s because that sensor is what drives that usability, not because I have even the slightest need for 100MP.

 

[Rich42]

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.

At same print size it does.

OK.

 

[The Hat]

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....

Smartphones start with small sensors and a relatively small amount of light, so cropping makes that already small sensor even smaller and ends up exacerbating problems that are already there. Whereas if you crop in from a 100MP GFX sensor, you’re still looking at a 60MP full frame sensor or a 30MP APS-C sensor, both of which are competitive with top end cameras that produce stunning results. It works because a big 100MP sensor is total overkill for the needs of most people who’d contemplate buying a 100RF, and that’s not true of a phone sensor.

If the number of pixels is the most important thing and cropping in from this sensor is somehow unacceptable, then the Leica Q3 43 must also be unacceptable, because that’s what you get from the 100RF. They both give you a 60MP full frame sensor with a broadly similar field of view. But one of them also gives the option of using a 100MP MF sensor and a wider angle. And it’s the cheaper one!

It’s short-sighted to think that just because a 100MP MF sensor exists, its sole purpose must be to provide 100MP MF images. Its real purpose here is to do the job of several cameras in one compact and lightweight package, and to still produce thoroughly competent images in all cases.

The way to think about this camera is to consider how many of your own shooting situations it can cover with output that’s more than good enough for the job. Anyone who can only start from the thought of the 100MP on that sensor should buy a GFX 100S II instead.

Obviously starting with a better quality you will end with better quality.

But using 35mm eq. Crop it's about equivalent to shoot with a FF camera (with a slow lens) and shooting at 50mm crop it's about equivalent to shoot APSC camera and 80mm about like a M43 camera

Why does that matter? All the formats you listed are used by professionals. It is still good output, especially if the subject is something you care about. It may be a big deal to you, but to me it a feature, especially since it won't prevent you from shooting at 28/4 MF 100MP.

Just to remember there is no free lunch, and you can be better served with a 60mp FF camera with a 2.8 zoom if you plan to shoot >= 35mm equiv. But if you prefer the RF I don't see nothing wrong, for sure it's a great little camera

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs,

Pixel count is, in most cases, more than sufficient, but the DR is not.

M43 vs MF at ISO 6400.

It’ll be more than adequate for my needs

 

[Rich42]

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs,

Pixel count is, in most cases, more than sufficient, but the DR is not.

M43 vs MF at ISO 6400.

It’ll be more than adequate for my needs

And you call yourself a photographer!? Not with an attitude like that, my friend!

It's in the photographer's creed. Whatever equipment he has, a true photographer knows that "better" gear will make "better" shots.

G.A.S. is a given.

Those manufacturer's have to eat, too. Ya know!

 

[jhunna]

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs,

Pixel count is, in most cases, more than sufficient, but the DR is not.

M43 vs MF at ISO 6400.

This is why I choose to take all these "graphs" with a grain of salt. Below is a shot I took with the GFX100sii. (I had to do a screen shot so you could see the entire composition as the full 100MP file size will not upload). I tried to shoot this at 35mm exactly but as you can see these were shot at 36.9, close enough, f4 and iso 12800. These files are ridiculous!




This is the original composition. The grid lines, etc... are from DXO.

So I cropped in on this picture to simulate a 20MP m43 picture. This is the picture without any noise reduction. The noise on this sensor is so fine that it really doesn't bother me. I would be ok just going mono chrome OR resizing the picture to m43 size.


m43 size no NR

And here is the file cleaned up using deep prime. It still retains the texture of the lens, the lines in the flash, and there is even a "spec" on the white part of the lens that's visible if you can resize it to 100%


m43 sized with NR.

All this talk about loss in Dynamic Range, Noise, etc... is just that bunch of talk. And if I want to recover the 100MP I can resize the m43/20MP to 100MP and use that. These files are ridiculously malleable. If all you have is 28mm/f4 (yes there is even some bokeh/shallow depth of field on display) that is going to be MORE than enough.

This is why I rent cameras and see for myself to see if it works for me. The 35/4, no IBIS, is no problem.

 

[JimKasson]

All this talk about loss in Dynamic Range, Noise, etc... is just that bunch of talk. And if I want to recover the 100MP I can resize the m43/20MP to 100MP and use that.

Are you claiming that you can crop a 100MP file to 20 MP and resize it to give what you'd get if you shot a 100 MP file with the field of view in the first place?

Then why buy a camera that's not MFT?

 

[Doppler9000]

Pixel count is like most aspects of digital cameras these days: the technical capability reaches a point where it’s more than adequate for your needs,

Pixel count is, in most cases, more than sufficient, but the DR is not.

M43 vs MF at ISO 6400.

So I cropped in on this picture to simulate a 20MP m43 picture.

How did you do this? The pixel pitch on the 20MP 4/3 sensor is smaller than that of the 100Mp 33x44mm chip.

This is the picture without any noise reduction. The noise on this sensor is so fine that it really doesn't bother me. I would be ok just going mono chrome OR resizing the picture to m43 size.


m43 size no NR

And here is the file cleaned up using deep prime. It still retains the texture of the lens, the lines in the flash, and there is even a "spec" on the white part of the lens that's visible if you can resize it to 100%


m43 sized with NR.

All this talk about loss in Dynamic Range, Noise, etc... is just that bunch of talk.

Are you saying it’s not true, or that it doesn’t comport with your empirical findings?

And if I want to recover the 100MP I can resize the m43/20MP to 100MP and use that. These files are ridiculously malleable. If all you have is 28mm/f4 (yes there is even some bokeh/shallow depth of field on display) that is going to be MORE than enough.

This is why I rent cameras and see for myself to see if it works for me. The 35/4, no IBIS, is no problem.

Seems like a sound decision for you.

 

[jturn00]

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....

Smartphones start with small sensors and a relatively small amount of light, so cropping makes that already small sensor even smaller and ends up exacerbating problems that are already there. Whereas if you crop in from a 100MP GFX sensor, you’re still looking at a 60MP full frame sensor or a 30MP APS-C sensor, both of which are competitive with top end cameras that produce stunning results. It works because a big 100MP sensor is total overkill for the needs of most people who’d contemplate buying a 100RF, and that’s not true of a phone sensor.

If the number of pixels is the most important thing and cropping in from this sensor is somehow unacceptable, then the Leica Q3 43 must also be unacceptable, because that’s what you get from the 100RF. They both give you a 60MP full frame sensor with a broadly similar field of view. But one of them also gives the option of using a 100MP MF sensor and a wider angle. And it’s the cheaper one!

It’s short-sighted to think that just because a 100MP MF sensor exists, its sole purpose must be to provide 100MP MF images. Its real purpose here is to do the job of several cameras in one compact and lightweight package, and to still produce thoroughly competent images in all cases.

The way to think about this camera is to consider how many of your own shooting situations it can cover with output that’s more than good enough for the job. Anyone who can only start from the thought of the 100MP on that sensor should buy a GFX 100S II instead.

Right. Im trying to understand my own shooting situation to see can it cover the most situations I’m in.

 

[Gandolphi]

It might be the start of a new way camera manufacturers look at things. A bit like when Canon introduced the T90 and then the 620/650 EOS range, everything changed at the non-professional level. Maybe bring in new thoughts on a basic square sensor with different crops in portrait and landscape mode.

Does the magic crop button on the 100RF just crop or does it also affect the algorithms used to process the JPG?

Hasselblad have previous experience with a fixed lens camera.

 

[jturn00]

Ok. This conversation encouraged me to go back and look at the last two family trips….had my x-pro2 but also had photos from GoPro 910 ( for water activities) wife’s iPhone 12/ and iPhone 14 pro max and (now recently upgraded) iPhone pro max16

On x-pro2, lots of photos at 35mm, 18mm and 55mm with a few at odd lengths (20,24,43) due to 18-55 zoom. Most were shot above f/4 as there was most walking around was in daylight. I own the 23mm f2, 35mm f2 and 18-55 f 2.8-4. ( I don’t think I brought the 23mm prime since I had the 18-55 but I can’t remember my lens rationalization. )

A few evening/night photos were shot at f2 on the 35mm at night using iso 4000, 5000, 6400,12800 and shutter was around 1/60 Most were pretty sharp given the high iso used (It’s hard to say on slight motion blur due to high iso)

I realized with the 35mm on my xpro2, I used my iPhone 16pro to get a wider angle or pano. And at night, I’m also thinking I didn’t have my18-55 or 23 mm with me or family wouldn’t wait to switch lenses at night on street.

Im going to reconsider a camera that might match some of the shooting based the x-pros trend and see what might work best for the weight / quality ratio.