Fujifilm GFX 100 pre-production sample gallery

Because images were shot on a pre-production camera, and we have permission to post JPEGs.

4 weeks agopermalink

CekariYH

Ah, that explains it :-)

4 weeks agopermalink

VampireH

Wow, the amount of details in a 100MP image is staggering. Poor 8K

4 weeks agopermalink

dmartin92

The young kid kneeling, with his hand on the little toy police car... just cropping around his hand and the police car, and looking at the crop, it is pretty amazing.

It appears the hand and toy police car were the focus points.

4 weeks agopermalink

User4286416121

After reading this I checked and you are right! The focus is there. Wish the DPReview gallery was easier to use. This is the first time I have used it since the changeover. Please fix it
Thanks

4 weeks agopermalink

UncoyDP

Just download the pics which interest you. At least DPR doesn't fuss around about downloads.

3 weeks agopermalink

Panasonic's S1 & S1R can produce pretty convincing 96 and 187 megapixel pics in hi-rez mode and do the same 4K 4:2:0 (soon 4:2:2) video internally and are just as tank-like for $7500 and $6500 cheaper respectively!

4 weeks ago*permalink

That high res mode is basically useless is there's movement in the frame.

4 weeks agopermalink

Carey Rose

Actually the 'mode 2' motion correction in the Panasonics is really impressive, there are a handful of samples near the end of the S1R sample gallery. A few artifacts, sure, but vastly improved over the G9's high res mode.

4 weeks agopermalink

forpetessake

I don't know what people do with 100MP. Maybe 0.1% of users can find a use for that, for the rest it will be a pixel waste. For me 100MP is a liability. I was happy to switch from 42MP Sony to 24MP, everything became a lot faster. Moreover if you want a really good 100MP you need to have high SS/stationary subject, no camera shake, precise focus, no hot air distortions, etc. etc.

3 weeks agopermalink

Many of these shots were of static buildings.

The S1R would give you a 187megapixel shot, in other words, almost twice the GFX 100's resolution at a third of the price.

3 weeks agopermalink

edo8o:

But that wasn't a condition of the original comment.

No one disputes that pixel shift images work quite well if there's no movement in the frame.

As for these static images, and pixel shift, you'd want a tripod in most cases. And some institutions don't want such devices set up--it's usually about preventing commercial activity.

3 weeks agopermalink

It doesn't change the main postulate.

It is possible to get basically the same or double the GFX's resolution with cameras currently available for a third or a quarter of the price.

3 weeks agopermalink

edn80:

"It is possible to get basically the same or double the GFX's resolution with cameras currently available for a third or a quarter of the price."

ONLY IF YOU LIMIT the SHOTS to those WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT IN THE FRAME.

And though these particular samples largely fit within that limit, that's not the extent to which the camera can be used.

In other words, it's not for just shooting still lifes, landscapes, and architecture.

3 weeks ago*permalink

SHOUTING in all caps won't change anything. It is possible and up to the photographer to assess and gauge whatever scene he or she wishes to shoot-- a tradeoff, for sure, but possible, at a third and a quarter of the GFX's price.

3 weeks agopermalink

edn80:

The capitals are points you keep ignoring.

It's not a basic choice between X and 0.33X being just as good.

3 weeks agopermalink

I maintain that it is currently possible to shoot at 96 and 187 megapixels (roughly the same or double the GFX's resolution) with the S1 and S1R cameras currently available for $2500 and $3500 respectively--

Actually $2100 and $3100 with the current $400 off B&H and Adorama trade-in bonuses.

So, $7000 and $8000 off the GFX100.

3 weeks ago*permalink

edn80:

"I maintain that it is currently possible to shoot at 96 and 187 megapixels (roughly the same or double the GFX's resolution) with the S1 and S1R cameras currently available for $2500 and $3500 respectively--"

Not if there's motion in the frame.

You'd have more of a case just saying "the Nikon D850 and Canon 5DSR are enough".

3 weeks agopermalink

You still can if there's motion in the frame thanks to the Mode 2 motion correction setting and then you have everything else, like those GFX 100 church and building shots in the gallery.

But if you don't want to, the S1R and its 47megapixels is enough, yes.

It's still possible to go for 96 and 187 megapixels if you want to on top of it.

3 weeks ago*permalink

edn80:

"You still can if there's motion in the frame thanks to the Mode 2 motion correction setting and then you have everything else, "

This is simply untrue, and says you know nothing of pixel shift imaging.

Some smartphone camera features that are next to useless (no pixel shift involved) if there's motion in the frame: HDR, and lowlight multi-frame stacking.

3 weeks agopermalink

See Carey Rose, Reviews Editor at DPReview.com, and his reply above.

3 weeks agopermalink

edn80:

Pixel shift doesn't work if there's motion in the frame.

The Panasonic S1R, Pentax K1 II, and Olympus EM1x don't have the capacity to shoot pixel shift images with movement in the frame. DPR has been pretty clear about this. There's no magic "Panasonic system".

Now, I'm defining motion as person or dog walking across the foreground, or a car driving into the frame.

Sorry, I've tried most of these systems. They fail if there's motion.

Now, one can certainly hand hold the Olympus EM1x and use pixel shift, of if you mean vibration motion, sure that's possible. But not a dog in the foreground.

3 weeks ago*permalink

And yet the option's still there, and for everything else, studio photography, buildings with no motion, etc... you get the same or double the GFX 100's megapixel resolution for $7000 and $8000 less.

3 weeks agopermalink

edn80:

Absolutely, you can use it for the studio or for buildings.

But if if you try it with a person moving his arm, you'll get what looks like an arm not connected to the person.

3 weeks agopermalink

CaPi

Looking at this gallery I wonder if we are finally at the point where jpeg - even with editing - can no longer convey what todays sensors can record.

4 weeks agopermalink

liquidsquid

I think we passed this point a while ago actually. We spend a lot of time futzing with images to cram the large DR a sensor can actually record into a limited compression technique for display on computer/phone monitors, many of which will display the image in an even more limited (TN panels) or over-cooked fashion (iPhone/Samsung displays). It takes a pretty darned good display medium (print, good lighting, or high end monitor) to display what many modern sensors are truly capable of. This is inexperience talking but really, we take 12,14,16 bits and squeeze it into 8 or less in JPG.

3 weeks agopermalink

CaPi

Ironically enough smartphone displays are better than most tvs, projectors or Displays available.
The phones being available in extreme numbers already triggered heif on apple

3 weeks agopermalink

liquidsquid

While the displays themselves are good, most users have a setting left on by default that over-cooks the colors and contrast.

3 weeks agopermalink

User9362470513

This sort of camera will shine with printed images - medium format always looks stunning printed because of the micro detail.

On a computer screen or phone, of course it looks marginally different to every other camera on the market.

4 weeks agopermalink

chrissf

And what are you planning to do with those 100 Megapixel snapshots?
Watch them on a smartphone? ^^

4 weeks agopermalink

GoodKnight

Truth is in today’s world Sharing images online and viewing them on a smart phone is by far the largest user experience.

3 weeks agopermalink

Canisojixxx

Color science is awful. My 60D can do better than this.

4 weeks agopermalink

agrek

I was there just a few weeks ago and photographed exactly the same spots. Honestly, I can’t see any difference to the images taken with my XT3 😆 Anyway, well done Fuji! 👏 Big toys for big boys and mural photography 😆

4 weeks agopermalink

obsolescence

I surmise images processed from the Raw files from this camera will rival 8x10" film quality (drum scanned to digital).

4 weeks agopermalink

tbasher

How are we supposed to judge the quality of a camera without at least one cat photo?

4 weeks agopermalink

mxx

As a cat lover, I can't but agree!

4 weeks agopermalink

ZilverHaylide

You display some views of Florence but no 100MP captures of Bacchus on a Turtle? Or would that too much offend the delicate sensibilities of DPR viewers?

4 weeks agopermalink

LiangMing

A Huawei P30 in night shot mode can make similar pictures, too bad the government just banned the selling of the P30.

4 weeks agopermalink

mfinley

You mean too bad for China

4 weeks agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

It never fails. Every time there is a sample gallery posted, no matter what the camera, someone posts something to the effect of "a smartphone camera could have done the same thing."

4 weeks agopermalink

What this gallery suggests more than anything else is that there must be a severe lack of wide angle Fuji lenses! Most of these shots are framed too tightly.

4 weeks ago*permalink

Quite a long time ago, Laowa anounced a 17mm f/4 Zero-D for Fujifilm GFX... I hope the lens finally gets produced, it looks like an interesting option...

4 weeks ago*permalink

oscarvdvelde

There is a 23mm F4 for GFX mount, equivalent to 18mm full frame. That ought to be wide enough for many purposes. It has been used in some shots, but not to great effect.

4 weeks ago*permalink

Nonsense. Why are they framed too tightly? It is what the photographer wanted. I crop inside my camera so that I do no need to crop later.

4 weeks agopermalink

PhotoRotterdam

For Out of the Camera JPEGS, this is pretty amazing. Image 19, without having post production pushing and pulling or lens correction to set the geometry is impressive. The camera is facing down and left a bit, but if you do this with a tripod and take your time to align the angles you can skip post.

4 weeks agopermalink

NCB

Impressive jpegs. I like the 3D effect. I'm not a fan of Fuji colour but here they have it spot on for the subjects.

4 weeks ago*permalink

If the body is $10,000 I can only imagine what the glass is going to cost.... that is assuming that those with the GF50s will need to upgrade to glass that can resolve 100+ MP.
Not to mention I wonder what the computing requirements are going to be to process a 100MP image. I mean editing a 50MP image requires a decent computer these days (at least, to keep a reasonable speed/workflow). (I can see a decent performance lag editing my 24MP images vs. my 45MP images).

4 weeks ago*permalink

GF glass was designed from the off to resolve 100MP. Fujifilm has always said so.

4 weeks agopermalink

OK. haven't looked into the GF system that closely, but do remember the arguments about FF glass and the higher-res FF bodies.

4 weeks agopermalink

I consider the Fujifilm GF glass cheap, as it is for medium format and there won't be large quantities produced... Take advantage of the current discounts, $500 off each lens...

What lacks is a faster 50mm equivalent lens... (like a 63mm f/1.8 or f/2)

4 weeks ago*permalink

SheepStar

There is a 63mm F2.8, which is an 50mm F1.8 equiv lens...

4 weeks agopermalink

Not f/1.8 equivalent, f/2.2 equivalent...

4 weeks agopermalink

Not so much the cost, but rather the quality of the glass to resolve good detail/IQ. I know some were concerned that their older NIkon glass would be the limiting factor on their new high-res 45mp D850's. So that's kind of why I made the comment, but it sounds like Fuji has it figured out already from beginning when the 50MP MF cameras and lenses.

4 weeks ago*permalink

SheepStar

Close enough.

4 weeks agopermalink

stadlereric

The glass for the GFX system is some of the best I've used. Especially the 23mm

4 weeks agopermalink

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2019/05/23/at-the-brink-of-tomorrow-the-fujifilm-gfx100-first-look-preview/

Good news, I ordered the 23mm :D

4 weeks agopermalink

Sardonic G

Dollars to donuts pictures of my cats are going to rock after I get my hands on this puppy .

4 weeks agopermalink

FunGuy66

Don't use a puppy to take cat pictures. It never ends well.

4 weeks agopermalink

mxx

...for the puppy.

4 weeks agopermalink

Adam007

I don't love this gallery, but besides matters of taste, it may be that DPR's editors didn't have enough time this go-round to get dialed into the camera. Here is a conspicuously- biased review, which includes some truly jaw-dropping images:

4 weeks agopermalink

chankosuto

Good review and images indeed.

4 weeks agopermalink

kurtboomer

Im now convinced that a digital sensor will never get made that doesn't clip highlights at the slightest contrast in a photo. DP's picture of the guy sitting in front of the windows face is completely white, along with window highlights. Same sorts of highlight clippings in this gallery. The shadow to highlight transition and the clipping of digital is why I just cant like digital images.

4 weeks agopermalink

Rishi Sanyal

@kurtboomer: The picture of the guy sitting in front of the window is blown because of either (1) the exposure choice of the photographer, or (2) the (I think flawed) metering methodology of cameras, still centered around metering for middle grey. Metering for middle grey is not how you should expose digital, which has less highlight headroom, but far more shadow headroom, than film.

All these conversations around how film has more dynamic range are flawed, only considering highlight headroom, and not midtone SNR and shadow headroom. If you expose digital properly, you'd give it much less exposure to protect highlights, and yet its shadows and midtones would still look great compared to film (if not better). This would give you that extra highlight headroom that film has.

This is why digital cinema cameras have log modes, which better emulate the highlight headroom of film. And if you shot that vs. film, you'd see digital is better than film across the entire brightness range.

4 weeks agopermalink

Revenant

Most sample galleries, regardless of the camera used, are accompanied by someone commenting about poor DR because of blown highlights. Why is it that this far into the digital era, so many photographers are still thinking as if they were shooting film? Even people who never used a film camera?

4 weeks agopermalink

Rishi Sanyal

Revenant: Because digital camera metering systems still act as the camera is shooting film. One could argue that larger sensor high dynamic range cameras should probably automatically underexpose then brighten the image with a roll-off in the highlights (like Log modes), but I can understand why they opt not to.

One thing people might immediately notice is that, like Log modes, this will lead to an immediately flat-ish image preview. But once we get HDR / bright monitors into these cameras (we already kind of do with the 1000 nit OLED EVFs... if you turn EVF brightness to max which I always do), packing that extra DR into the image / preview (by underexposing and applying a log curve), it won't have to look so flat.

And maybe finally then we won't have cameras with 14 EV DR packing only 8-9 stops into a JPEG... that made sense when everything was shot for print or CRT displays (max 100 nits), but doesn't make so much sense now. Smartphones already pack more DR into their JPEGs.

3 weeks agopermalink

GoodKnight

Film is awesome in the shadows. With film it is almost impossible to blow high lights out with no detail. So expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

3 weeks agopermalink

BJL

@kurtboomer; blown highlighter t can be avoided by appropriate light metering (check the histogram if needed) and then appropriate converse raw to JPEG; these sensors have for more DR than any _color_ film, but defat metering squander most of it with a split of about 3–4 stops above mid-tones, 10–11 stops below!

The problem here is also probably partly due to the limitations with this pre-production camera to in-camera JPEG conversions, and using default mid-tone based metering. Most ILCs record more highlight headroom in the raw files than they use in default in-camera JPEG conversions.

2 weeks agopermalink

Barry Goyette

DPR Forum phlegm aside....the images from this camera are astounding. Sure there's more detail smearing in the Jpegs than I'd like, but come-on....I've been shooting with MF digital (Hasselblad Imacon thru H5d) for 15 years, and I've never seen shots this sharp taken handheld at 1/40 of a second, much less 1/5th. Given it's rendering 100mp, you'd expect to need a shutter of 1/250 or faster to do that with a mirrored mf, and still get more than your fair share of wiggly exposures. On the DR front...these OOC jpegs are impressive in their in camera processing, holding all the right amount of detail in the right places, with the right amount of color, and allowing for quite a bit of post pushing, (the jpg NR is probably helping here, but still and impressive amount of detail in the shadows) . Curious how much we're seeing corrected CA, as the wider architectural shots are showing almost none. Lets hope there are not to many Fuji bugaboos with this camera. Time to call the accountant.

4 weeks agopermalink

Fotoni

There is quite many photos which look like phone camera photos at pixel level. I don't know why Fuji offers that horrible noise reduction as default. They suppose to have excellent in-camera JPEG development softwares.

4 weeks agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

This is a comment that surfaces from someone no matter what the camera, no matter what the camera gallery.

4 weeks agopermalink

Also note that DPR states that the camera used is a pre-production unit so it ikely may have some features turned off perhaps in the firmware as well, such as film simulations. Also, I think they want to present a neutral representation of it's capabilities, and not one that has a lot of stuff baked into the JPEG (like their Velvia film simulation for example, which tends to saturate colors).

4 weeks ago*permalink

pacnwhobbyist

Do people just cut and paste this comment over and over again for each sample gallery? If a $10k medium format camera doesn't meet your standards, what does exactly?

4 weeks ago*permalink

digilux

Do I need glasses or does that first image really look like an aquarel???

4 weeks agopermalink

twostep

Useless for 99,99% of the scenarios....

4 weeks agopermalink

Roadrunnerdeluxe

Yeah, if 99,99% of your scenarios are Polaroid selfies.

4 weeks agopermalink

Would that camera be cheaper, you wouldn't say "useless"....

4 weeks agopermalink

twostep

@Roadrunnerdeluxe... Yeah take a break, will you?

@IdM photography... that's true, but then again it wouldn't be the same camera.

4 weeks agopermalink

kristian2000

@twostep Somehow, I don't think your 99.99% fact is accurate.

4 weeks agopermalink

nonuniform

Don't feed the troll.

4 weeks agopermalink

I am feeding the pseudo-troll with some delicious food. "Personally even 50MP is five times more than I've ever needed for anything, including photos I've licensed to McDonald's — for billboards — which I shot at a 4 (four) megapixel setting of my Nikon D7000." --- Ken Rockwell in his review of the GFX 100.
Enjoy the snack!
"

4 weeks agopermalink

Blue Swan Media

These are the kinds of pictures I take, and this gallery has convinced me that the GFX100 will not make these pictures any better. I'll just keep my X100F. Thanks for the $10,000, DPReview!

4 weeks agopermalink

twostep

100% correct!

4 weeks agopermalink

Michel Cojan

Maybe not better, but at least twice "bigger" !!! (hehehe).

4 weeks agopermalink

nonuniform

If this gallery is your average photo, why do you even own a camera? Why not just stick with your phone?

4 weeks agopermalink

Blue Swan Media

@nonuniform - now you're asking the real questions!

2 weeks agopermalink

nonuniform

TBH - my opinion is no more useful than anyone else here. In fact, if *everyone* online would just keep their opinions to themselves, internet traffic would just be people binging on netflix and youtube.

2 weeks agopermalink

stevo23

Wow.

4 weeks agopermalink

Olifaunt

All the blown highlights hurt my eyes.

4 weeks agopermalink

ZeBebito

I need to turn down the brightness of my monitor 😂😂

4 weeks agopermalink

LeDatas

55MB jpgs... Ouch.

4 weeks agopermalink

xPhoenix

Thanks, but I'll keep my D850.

4 weeks agopermalink

A Owens

OMG, these look great. The colour and overall rendering look extraordinary, especially considering they are only 8 bit JPEG.

4 weeks agopermalink

falconeyes

Photo #20, focus on middle of eyelashes. yet the front of eyelashes is already oof and has ugly purple bokeh fringing. Not the best portrait lens, maybe.

How about studio portraits with more conventional apertures and strobes? Ooc jpgs are normally good enough btw, don‘t blame the missing raw ...

4 weeks ago*permalink

Nikon: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-37Ls2Cx/0/bc92723b/O/i-37Ls2Cx.jpg

The iris also out of focus on Image 20. Looks like Fuji has Eylashes-AF like NIkon Z and Pansonic S1R do.

4 weeks agopermalink

wwwuser

"Chief, it's a failure!"

Favorite artifacts of X-TRANS - everything is in place :-)
And even worse - the SOOC, unlike Fuji X's, is flat and sad like mount Fuji at night.

But YES, DR and resolution are really amazing.

4 weeks ago*permalink

Tomasz_Wk

Artifacts? You're funny.

The camera uses a standard Bayer design, rather than the X-Trans sensor.

4 weeks agopermalink

Thoughts R Us

Yes, this comment is funny and illuminating in that it shows how so many just want to criticize for no good reason and jump on some sort of negative bandwagon.

The commenter actually criticizes the camera for its use of X-Trans...claiming to see the usual X-Trans artifacts when in fact this camera does't use X-Trans but in fact employs the standard Bayer color array.

It's almost self parody.

4 weeks agopermalink

mxx

Haters will hate.

4 weeks agopermalink

wwwuser

To all the fanatics of the brand:

It's not X-Trans (you say I didn't check ,I'm not interested. I'm interested in the output, not the type of sensor inside the camera), but the terrible "digital" contrast and sharpening is exactly like in X-Trance.

I have Fuji from 2007 (F-31, F-9600) - there was, too, most. Apparently, the problem is not in the hardware, but rather in the image processing algorithms that move from one generation of Fuji cameras to another.

Just to make it clear what I'm talking about. - FUJI: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-sgwCx/i-FkbpWVC/A

NIKON: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-sgwCx/i-sWCVCPt/A

P.S.
But you still buy - manufacturers are now very hard, our moral duty is to help them.

3 weeks ago*permalink

wwwuser

The links in the previous post were incorrect.
This is what it is - Fuji:
X-T3: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ns7j8pb/0/6932eabc/O/i-ns7j8pb.jpg

GFX100: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-H5VvTWH/0/ea7c3965/O/i-H5VvTWH.jpg

3 weeks ago*permalink

Aaron Yang

Looking at the samples, it seems that the resolution of this sensor is very unforgiving, slight softness in the corners become very evident. But the resolution is still amazing nonetheless, I guess 16x9 or 1x1 crops would be amazing.

4 weeks agopermalink

gianstam

Picture 22: Canon TS-E lens. A Typo?

4 weeks agopermalink

Miki Nemeth

I don't think so. There are at least three EF - GFX electronic adapters. Excellent find, Gian, I am a fan of TSE17f4L. This is one of the only lenses, I rebought after I had blatantly sold a year ago.
The TSE17 is quite an old lens, nevertheless, and I wonder, if the TSE17 has enough resolution for this totally new, state-of-the-art 100M Sony-sensor camera? It was designed for Canon sensors a number of years ago, in 2009.

4 weeks ago*permalink

herrMartin

it is not bad, it is even much better than their mediumformat counterparts from hasselblad and schneider. A gfx with a adapted ts-e is the best quality you can get at them moment and not a uncommon usage

4 weeks agopermalink

That’s a typo.

4 weeks agopermalink

misspiggy01

this is obviously a camera that wants to be shot on a tipod and in raw mode.

the OOC jepgs are underwhelming, the combination of noise reduction and sharpening do create smatphone-like mushiness albeit at very high resultion.

i never understood testing a camera with OOC jpegs. nobdy whos half serious about images uses factory settings, i think you should do the same. OOC images do not create a level playing field for testing, they are just as arbitrary between cameras and camera makers as any personal tweaks to image parameters.

if you shoot jpeg you should tweak them in camera "to taste" just like you do with your raw conversions.

4 weeks agopermalink

akustykmagmanetpl

but is there already a RAW converter that can handle those RAW files?

if not, then JPEGs are still better than nothing

4 weeks agopermalink

Barbu

While nobody in their right mind would use standard SOOC; on the other hand, of course that tweaking a bit the JPEG setting would make quite good previews for sharing right during the shooting.
And let's not fault DPR for not showing some ACR processed shots; every time it was possible, they did that (often used with beta versions, for the bleeding edge equipment).

4 weeks agopermalink

FrancoPhoto

These are just pre-production samples mate. As Nacho Libre would say: mucho take it easy.....

4 weeks agopermalink

misspiggy01

@francofoto

I am convinced that developed raws will show better results, but the question of ooc jpegs is still valid even in a preproduction model if they let you save images to post all over the web.

4 weeks agopermalink

misspiggy01

I am not questioning the use of jpegs, but the use of ooc standard factory settings jpegs in reviews as a faux level playing field in general.

4 weeks agopermalink

Kurgo

I hope the coin fell the right way from the lucky boar's mouth ;)

4 weeks agopermalink

attomole

Fuji fan. But somehow cant get exited about this camera to big and high end I guess. hope the camera and strategy works for them though, they have been trailblazers in the technology, handling, industrial design, Marketing on new platforms accountable use of influencers and most of all customer relations.

4 weeks agopermalink

Lord Powershoter

Curious about the IQ comparison with the 100mp Phase One.

4 weeks agopermalink

Hard to say based on preproduction model with only a few sample images, the few here show the Fuji lenses may not be as good as the available Phase/mamiya lenses. But for the price difference this camera system seems amazing.

4 weeks agopermalink

I think the IQ may be very similar, as the sensor is more recent (and back illuminated)… What I like with Fujifilm are the more modern lenses….

4 weeks agopermalink

Phase One also have a better 100MP sensor that at 53.7×40.4mm is true medium format. Fuji is more like full frame plus.

4 weeks agopermalink

Phase One is a full frame medium format, yes (50% larger sensor)... but is a DSLR, mirror shake, no IBIS, older lenses that are more difficult to design because of the 63mm flange distance... The Fujifilm system is more future proof...

4 weeks ago*permalink

Idm I’ve used both lenses, granted my Phase One has more MP and my Mamiya is 50mp but a very old camera compared to the Fuji, but the Phase/Mamiya lenses are definitely sharper all the way to corners, less vignettes and leaf shutters. The new Fuji does have IBIS which if it really works will be great for a high MP large sensor, but I haven’t tried their new camera yet. I’m a big fan of Fuji but I definitely wouldn’t say Fuji medium format are better lenses, they are nice but not Phase One/Mamiya level. There are newer lenses in the Phase system as well as older Mamiya ones. Plus the built in Capture One software is a huge plus, everything old and new works from day one with capture one which is one of the best editing software.

4 weeks ago*permalink

@pkcpga I never used a Phase One camera, despite I almost bought a discounted refurbished one...

I have been analizing specs, and was surprised to see that the Schneider Kreuznach 80mm LS f/2.8 lens is only made of 6 elements/5 groups and weights only 500gr... That is certainly not the correct way to determine the quality of a lens, but it is against all currents trends. The awsome Sigma 40mm f/1.4 that I just bought for my A7Riii (with a small FF sensor) is made of 16 elements/12 groups, weights 1200gr... Again, this is not a serious comparison, but it raised some doubts... To be more specific, doubts about how good can the Schneider Kreuznach 80mm LS f/2.8 lens be when shooting wide open... The Sigma 40mm is tremendous wide open at f/1.4...

4 weeks ago*permalink

IdM, you are looking at these lens specs upside down. The fact that the Schneider Kreuznach can resolve sufficiently with 6 elements is an advantage, not a detriment.

Lens design can be weighted either towards sharpness or microcontrast. Typically lenses for medium format are better balanced between sharpness and microcontrast than many modern full frame lenses. The reason for this is driven purely by the format.

To resolve 50MP within the confines of full frame requires lenses to be corrected for every possible optical aberration. If they aren’t, they are not considered sharp enough. Hence lenses like the Sigma 50mm balloon to 14 elements and weigh a ton. But that all that glass can also makes lenses like this render subjects flatly, lacking both microcontrast and 3D Pop.

The fact that medium format Schneider Kreuznach lenses can resolve 100MP resolution with only 6 elements simply means that they can resolve more microcontrast in trade.

4 weeks ago*permalink

@fPrime If this were true, why do all the new lenses have anyway more elements? The new Canon RF f/1.2L has 15 Elements in 9 Groups... The older (not so sharp) EF version has 8 elements in 6 groups... Does Canon not care about microcontrast ? Or maybe that microcontrast thing is just a MYTH... Who has been measuring microcontrast? Lensrentals? DXOMark?

4 weeks agopermalink

IdM, that’s true, most modern full frame lenses do have more elements because we’ve gone from 12MP in 2006 to 50MP in 2019. They have broadly become better corrected for both optical aberrations and sharper corners wide open, but microcontrast has taken a hit IMHO.

It’s important to realize my definition of microcontrast is not the Zeiss definition. For my definition see here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62656077

Canon lens design is a bit of an outlier for me... some of their new RF lenses still show good 3D Pop despite their high element counts. What I suspect this mostly boils down to is that these lenses also offer extraordinarily wide apertures (f/1.2). Shallow DOF is the strongest lens generated depth cue and can compensate for the loss of some microcontrast in the generation of 3D Pop.

In general I prefer Canon’s older glass over its more modern successors. The older 35L Mk 1, for example, renders more pop for me than the better-corrected 35L Mk 2. Both are f/1.4.

4 weeks ago*permalink

IDM what I’ve personally noticed is lenses with more elements tend to have sharper center images with greater fall off and vignetting, while better manufactured elements within the lens can still have great sharpness and gain better micro contrast as well as less sharpness falloff towards the edges. It’s not always how many elements the lens has but the quality and design of the element itself. You notice this more with very high end glass such as Schneider or true Leica (not Panasonic Leica) or true Zeiss (not Sony Zeiss) or even high end Fuji glass for motion pictures and some Hassy glass (unfortunately old glass has been much been than anything new with them). Remember the light has to pass through those elements so the shape, clarity and finish quality of the element is very important not just how many elements are in there to help correct the previous element.

4 weeks agopermalink

Think of it also as when you use a filter on your lens, you just added another element to your lens. If the filter uses a cheap base glass or even plastic, the filter now adds distortion to your photo. While using a filter with a better quality base glass, forget the coating, the better element causes less distortion to your photo and less vignetting. The reason I always recommend people buy filters with better base glass over fancy name brand coatings on cheap plastic or poly base filter lens.

4 weeks agopermalink

PictureTakerPhotoMaker

Mhh. Must be fun like driving a Porsche within city limits at 15mph.

Or said differently - guys, these images can be taken with a smartphone, time to step up your game of test shots with such a camera!

4 weeks agopermalink

TylerBreeden

Photographers can be such petty creatures...

4 weeks agopermalink

raimundo gaby

Humans can...

4 weeks agopermalink

For Instagram posting, any cellphone will do… How many likes did you get today?

4 weeks agopermalink

At least drive your Porsche on the freeway occasionally to clear out the cobwebs.
"Personally even 50MP is five times more than I've ever needed for anything, including photos I've licensed to McDonald's — for billboards — which I shot at a 4 (four) megapixel setting of my Nikon D7000." --- Ken Rockwell in his review of the GFX 100.

4 weeks agopermalink

Critics about "more megapixels" never stop, but more resolution makes a difference... I see that when printing photos on my 44 inches wide HP printer...

4 weeks agopermalink

@IDM photography - "more megapixels" makes a difference for a small percentage of photographers. Don't look at that 44 inch print from so close up, look at it from normal viewing distance(maybe 20' away).
I was at the pro lab that I occasionally use for film scans and they had a 40x60 print for me to look at from 15 feet away. It looked great and it was taken with a Nikon D700 and upsized 100%. They typically upsize that much for customers.
The late mountain photographer, Galen Rowell, was making 20x30 prints from 35mm scans.
A lot of mpx have their place, but I have seen great looking prints printed at 150dpi.

4 weeks agopermalink

Bashir Lunat

@PictureTaker....,
I think any "proper" camera can deliver better than most phone cameras,but phone camera beats all "proper" cameras for convinience and portability.

4 weeks agopermalink

@MyReality It is interesting, sometimes, to look closely at the details hidden in a large print...

Maybe just a small percentage of photographers care about such a resolution today, but it's mainly because of the size, weight and price... It may become just normal in 15 years to have 100 Megapixels APS-C cameras.

4 weeks agopermalink

ebarak71

100mp images of graffiti is exactly what Fuji was aiming for :-)

4 weeks agopermalink

SpeedyNeo

Photo #20: the girl's eye color matches her sweater perfectly.

4 weeks agopermalink

GrapeJam

Nice gallery but looking at these photos I think the lenses might not be be completely resolving the 100 mp sensor, sharpness at 100% is actually not really impressive.

4 weeks ago*permalink

Remember that you're looking at OOC JPEGs here. We'd expect more from the Raws.

4 weeks agopermalink

badi

Also, since you are trying to show the sensor and not the lenses - may i suggest to stop down the lens a bit in some images (for example the portraits, are almost all shot wide open), Personally i think it's easier to judge fine detail in portraits, because of the organic super-fine details.

4 weeks agopermalink

akustykmagmanetpl

still looks amazing, mate.

not that I need the camera, but it's pleasure to browse through the 100% zoom of the first photo (panorama from Piazzale Michelangelo) and discover all the things going on in the city

Fuji's JPEGs are pretty sharp normally, but wait for RAWs to see even more details!

4 weeks agopermalink

JT26

Also - Dont just look at the images on Chrome browser, they will display far greater than 100% res. Have to put the file into an image editor to see 100%.

4 weeks agopermalink

SpeedyNeo

First thing I noticed is that the dynamic range is really good.

4 weeks agopermalink

Jesse_Just_Him

And thus my browser crashed...

4 weeks agopermalink

akustykmagmanetpl

you had a camera that is a wet dream for (landscape) photographers printing very large (but also working with very high shooting discipline with tripod)

in Tuscany.

and there's a 50+ shots gallery including a dog, some portraits and night shots which kind of don't feel like photos that would have people pay $10K for this big resolution (because this is the biggest selling point of this camera). and 2 landscapes that really show what this resolution is about...

how helpful do you think this gallery is to someone contemplating shelling $10K for body alone for this particular camera model? for someone prepared to go the full length of lugging big tripod, work slow ahead of pressing shutter and then throw a lot of iron in PC to process those monster files. this camera instead of plenty more handholdable DSLRs at similiar or even lower price tag.

4 weeks agopermalink

forpetessake

Hmm, and why would you need a heavy expensive camera to take those travel pictures? They could have been taken with any FF or even APS-C camera and nobody would ever see the difference.

4 weeks agopermalink

Well, they're 100MP in size, so the line about how they're no different to the output from 'any FF or even APS-C camera' is not true, but do bear in mind that these are JPEG files shot on a pre-production camera. We'll be posting adjusted Raw images as soon as we can.

4 weeks agopermalink

Duncan M

Never seen much difference in IQ for images taken from pre-production models to production models. They are actually mostly exactly identical.

There will be not much to tweak anymore.
This is just it. I am sure we won't see any improvement in the final release.

But please let me be happily surprised it will.

The problem is more that it is hard to shoot images that truly require 100MP+. Especially now even billboards are being replaced with LCD screens and print is diminishing too. One could even say 4K and 8K for sure is enough for a loooong time to come.

4 weeks ago*permalink

aris14

It's either you can "see" or not...

4 weeks agopermalink

milkod2001

Those are just random pointless shots. Fuji should have paid pro fashion or landscape photographer to take this new camera for the spin to show us where this new camera really delivers. You see, you can put random person into Ferrary and he still be driving like he is driving his own crappy car :)

4 weeks agopermalink

Miki Nemeth

Photos from DPR staff are not (supposed to be) "random pointless shot" They are doing it for a living.

4 weeks agopermalink

milkod2001

They do their best but you gotta admit images are not by pro photographers. They need to post about new camera gear quickly. They take camera out for the weekend spent with friends and post images from that. That's as good as you get here. I'm not complaining just telling how it is.

4 weeks agopermalink

Miki Nemeth

@Milk, My understanding was that Barney and all/most DPR staff people have professional qualification, and I regard them accordingly. It would be quite meaningless that DPR, a highly esteemed and regarded organization, would keep amateur/hobby-only random snapshot-takers (using your words) on their payroll and let them do $10000 100M state-of-the-art camera-testing. I simply don't understand your points, how could it be justified. If it were any truth in what you wrote, I'd stop reading any DPR staff review and watch their photo galleries.

4 weeks ago*permalink

milkod2001

@Miki: They are somewhere in the middle. Chris is photographer and Jordan videographer and together they do very good video content. The rest of staff are more like online copywriters first with huge emphasis on Amazon links (Amazon owns this site BTW) and let's be polite enthusiast photographers second :) Didn't want to make this look like they are useless or something.

4 weeks ago*permalink