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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

edn80:

The capitals are points you keep ignoring.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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

Close enough.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

@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.

@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...

@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?

Humans can...

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

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.

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...

@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.

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

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

@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.

"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"

Hoooooo boy, where to start?