Puppy teeth sharp.

Do you have evidence proving what he said to be incorrect?

Principals not personalities! James Lotto's attack on the Editor of "Thinking about buying medium format? Read this first." (March 21, 2017) is totally uncalled for. We are looking at photographic products. Tools of the trade of photography. That article was a service.

Having problems with your caps lock?

@ContarexMan Sorry man that your glass broke your photo career, better luck next time! #NextTimeWillWorkForYou

@ ContarexMan - "They are just not sharp enough." I agree. When you look closely at the eye lashes of the models, they are good, but not needle sharp. I'm comparing them to the images I got from the Sony 85mm f/1.8 or 55mm f/1.8. Even though when we are comparing 42MP vs 50MP. I wonder if it would make a different had the camera mounted on a tripod...

How sharp were they on the Mona Lisa?

The photo was not intended to count rivets on a Soviet missile.

@ james S. Kennedy - First of all, you wouldn't want to shoot Mona Lisa for a sharpness test, because they put a piece of glass like material in front for protection. At least that's what I remember when I visited that place decades ago. Yes, it was not intended to count rivets, but the samples were intended for viewers like you and me to see if this lens has any potential for it to become part of your arsenal. The point is, either there's an issue with the operator or the lens itself has reached it's capacity for the 50MP sensor. Isn't it the whole purpose of it? This isn't anything like brand bashing you know. I shot Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji myself. Just stating the observation here.

Jim Kasson has done detail testing on the lens (and other GFX lenses) and they are of superb quality - better than most lenses out there today.

Now can a DPR tester get the best out of the system - who knows - it takes a lot of technique to properly handle MF.

Speaking personally, these lenses are better than any of the Zeiss glass I've owned for my Hasselblad, better than any of the L glass for my Canon, better than anything else, period.

Fuji have delivered - sorry if that upsets some folk - though not sure why it should

@ChrisDodkin Simple, FF shooters felt like king of the hill for 10y looking down on everyone else, now some FF shooters will move to MF and those remaining are no better than APSC to the new MF crowd. FF took off because many people without a lot of money could buy FF and feel good (same reason iPhone took off). Now those days are gone and they feel it.

ContarexMan is one of them. His A7 no longer enables him to look down on everyone else. So he needs to trash the GFX. He will go mad when the 100mpx version is released.

StephanSchmidt - Nice try! You are a M3/4 troll for sure. I'm sorry you felt that you've been abused and looked down upon by FF shooters... I can assure you that FF shooters will not feel like shooting APSC when compared to MF. You need to do more research on the differences between MF and FF before coming here trolling.

Some great photographers use Holga

I think my Sony A7r3 with 24-105 can produce sharper pix for much less $$.

@Phil - No...it won't.

@Phil...the only thing precious is your ignorance. As to getting trounced, it seems the resolving power of MF film is not only higher than the D800, but the IQ180 at 80mp. When it comes to film, when I tell you that you are wrong....you most definitely are.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9932828572/photos/3779632/img_6271

Love you you try to discount the example. Fact remains, it proves the point. In ultimate resolution, film still performs. You were mistaken. Move on

Are you enjoying your new user ID?

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9932828572/photos/3779632/img_6271

@roblumba: Well all Leica shooters think they have the best Cameras and IQ from their gear. But that's natural after paying premium for the least featured cameras in the market. I would also think the same if I pay MF price for a camera with least features (Leica). How else could I justify this? I cannot call myself STUPID for shedding thousands of pound on a camera that does so little!! Or could I?

Forget it my friend. Most people don't have the eye or the understanding of lens design to be able to explain the difference between Leica lenses and other brands.
They might have a stronger emotional reaction to Leica shots, but they don't know that the effect is the result of a group of engineers sitting down and deciding how they wanted the lens and sensor to interact and then using their education and experience to achieve it.
Which is not to say that Fuji doesn't make some exquisite lenses, just that their in-house design philosophy seems to be different from Leica.

It's sad that this site, the most influential on the planet, does so little to educate readers about the nuances of lens and sensor design and the ways in which particular engineers at the various companies emphasize one trait over another. Instead, they focus on largely irrelevant numbers, much to the detriment of their readers and the industry.

@roblumba : Take it from me sir, anything other than what you have just said would definitely insult your intelligence. And I don't think you are in a position for self critique after shedding thousand upon thousand of dollars just to be part of Leica aficionado. After all there is a very fine line between reality and mental illness.

@James Lotto. Haha. I have no clue why you would be someone who I should "take it from". Sorry, I don't even know who you are, but I can tell you have something against Leica users so I typically don't give much credibility to people who have a chip on their shoulder. So I take it you really like the results from the Fuji lens? No doubt they make great glass. What do you like about it?

Roblumba is discussing diverse characteristics of lenses and the corresponding influence on image quality, which is quite interesting to me. Mr Lotto intervenes by talking about dollars - and mental illness ???

These comments are sometimes informative, but too often hijacked by idiots who are ruining conversations that can be useful for all of us.

@roblumba "That 3D pop, and microtonal contrast, appears better on the Leica lens."

If you want to see the ultimate example of that then I suggest you view RAW images from a Sigma DPM camera. Your Leica combo wouldn't even come close. In fact, no other camera made comes close for that at native 100% viewing. Of course the Sigmas are near useless not too much higher than base ISO, but something to consider if you care about the most impressive native 1:1 images.

@PhilDunn: Dont even get there!! The price of Leica lens could buy a mansion in India let alone 20 Sigma DPM Cameras. Do you really think someone who spent an equivalent of life's savings in India on a Leica camera would ever agree to your statement? They paid thousands to buy a mere belief that their money bought them the best camera in the world. And then some, they pop in decorative and fancy terms such as POP, 3D Look, Microcontrast and when you combine all these they have much better sleep at night.

@PhilDunn, I remember looking at the Sigma images and was amazed. I'm sure we can find other examples. I'm with Richard, some people really want to hijack a thread and add idiocy. My Leica was an inheritance gift and money was no consideration. I've had other cameras, like the Canon 1D Mark II and the Oly EM1. I like them all and I'm not claiming my lens / camera is the best. I can easily sell this Leica if I want. But now I'm just defending myself against the attacks of James Lotto. Pop, 3D and Microcontrast are no longer fancy terms. They just describe basic lens characteristics. Leica is quite good at it.

@roblumba I own two Sigma DPMs that I was planning on selling but I just can't get myself to do it. Years later I am still amazed *everytime* I open one of the RAW files from them. Shocking detail and sharpness. I'm surprised Leica didn't try to buy Foveon, rather than Sigma. My dream camera would have a new Sigma X3M Foveon sensor with similarly great lenses and that somehow would also be good at high ISO. I would buy a few and be done with camera buying for the rest of my life, even though I swore to myself I will no longer carry a camera bigger than my RX100V. 😊

As for Leica, yep, fine lenses; no question about that. As for their product pricing, most for profit companies base their prices on the most that their particular market will tolerate. I'm all for the free market in that regard, so I can't fault them. It's a premium product based mostly on build quality these days, as the competition can make just as good lenses these days for less money, Sigma being an example of that.

current trends show that larger sensors getting much cheaper and computing power of chips is enough to handle big data. why bother and invest in the system which is going to be obsolete in near future just like aps-h after ff sensors became affordable?

These are digital medium format cameras, and they don't go by the same sensor size as the old MF cameras. And with FF becoming cheaper, I think DMF will take place of FF, and FF will take place of APS-C in a not to distant future.

Full frame is a specific size while medium format is anything bigger than FF but not yet large format. If you made a sensor 1mm larger in each dimension than FF then it would technically be medium format.

There's no way FF will replace APS-C or MF will replace FF unless a manufacturing breakthrough allows sensors to be produced for far less money than at present and changes in design allow the size of FF cameras to be greatly diminished.

*If you made a sensor 1mm larger in each dimension than FF then it would technically be medium format.*
check and mate, haters :)

"These are digital medium format cameras, and they don't go by the same sensor size as the old MF cameras."

I have always wondered why ANY digital camera goes by the old film sizes. 24x36 is a self imposed limitation in terms of size and ratio. Only Olympus tried to throw the rule book out with 4/3. Of course I do really know the reason Canikon had a shed load of lenses that worked on 24x36.

" And with FF becoming cheaper, I think DMF will take place of FF, and FF will take place of APS-C in a not to distant future."

Surely as sensor technology increases the need for larger sensors
diminishes. Most people don't exceed the capabilities of their 20mp or 24mp aps-c or 4/3 sensors as it is.

OK tkbslc
but the problem then is listening to people over and over again give their views on how this sensor doesn't offer an advantage over FF, in their minds, gives the rest of us a bellyache.
Does that suit you better ? I think the point is pretty clear

DPReview exists for belly aching by its readers. Its their raison d'etre.

@Paul JM I agree. They never tried the system, yet they claim it's no different than FF. Well then, be happy with your FF. They all secretly want it, but publicly they can't be seen interested hahaha

I GUESS ITS THE CASE OF SOUR GRAPES

Franglish

Just put a D850 at iso64 with a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art against the Fuji GFX50 at iso100 with this lens on it. Now tell me, what is the advantage of the Fuji? DR is the same, DoF of the FF can be shallower and the Sigma is a really sharp lens. And all this for about half the price...

@Universal Creations I had D850, with Nikon 105mm, Sigma 50mm Art and Nikon 200mm F2. I sold them all except for the 105mm which I use with my D810. So, yes I tried D850 with many amazing lenses. There is an uniqueness to the photos created by the larger sensor that you can't get with FF. If you want to compare like that, then APS-C camera with a 23mm with F/0.95 should look same as FF, a m4/3 camera with a 17mm F/0.7 should look same and a iPhone with a 4.8mm lens and F/0.19 should look the same. Larger sensor will always produce a look a smaller sensor cannot. And dynamic range is not same either. Clearly you never used GFX 50S. Sour grapes much?

And let's not even start with noise performance. Your nose may bleed :)

If the shallower depth of field makes you better photographer something is so wrong

@NickR GFX 50S sensor is about 66% larger, not slightly larger. And if you are after shallow DoF only and not care of rendering detail, sharpness or dynamic range, then as gianstam says, something is so wrong with you.

And you can get f1.2 and f.95 on APSC.

It's never the same. On paper you can talk about equivalency but lens focal lengths never change despite the format it sits on. So you can calculate that 35 f/2 on FF looks shallower than 45 2.8 looks on MF. But what isn't take into consideration is the actual look of the image. Just like 50mm on FF looks better for portraits than 35mm on APS-C. You're still taking a portrait with a wid angle lens, it just happens to have the outer portion of the frame cropped out. That's why 50mm on FF just looks better than 35mm on APS-C when the same picture of the same person is taken the same way. Shift that up a format and it's the same discussion. 35mm f/2 FF is still wide angle to MF 45 f/2.8. Framed the same way, MF allows you to be closer to he subject combined with a *slightly* more telephoto effect, gives a totally different look and feel. If you truly want your noodle fried, try the GFX 110mm f/2. "Equal" to 85 1.4 but the extra 25mm of telephoto reach give it extra wow factor.

What these GF lenses do, is that they provide huge resolution and contrast straight out of full open aperture, and most importantly, without or with very little of CAs.

I can guarantee you that you cannot find many 35mm lenses for FFs that can do the same resolution and contrast with as little CAs at f/2.2.

Thus, the end result is better on GFX, even if you can match the DOF or have even shallower DOF on FF.

The thing was that MF film had a major "sensor size " advantage over 35mm film , these MF digital camera sensors are much smaller than even the smallest common MF film size 645. My much loved 6x7 gear had a film size almost 4.4x the area of 35mm film

Compared to current FF sensors the difference between them and the Fuji MF is roughly the same as between Sony APS and FF . The Fuji sensor size is 43.8 x 32.9

Those who never tried will never know. I am using GFX and my last camera was both D810 and D850 (Still have the D810), and I can see the differences clearly. image clarity, detail, sharpness, noise performance everything is better on GFX. Focusing is fast enough and it will get faster if manufacturer reputation for firmware update is anything to go by. And I used A7R3 for two weeks as I was considering it as a second camera (will sell nikon soon), but didn't like the image quality after using GFX. It is just cleaner and detailed in a way FF never was for me. And I had some of the best FF lenses: Nikon 105mm F/1.4E, Nikon 200mm F2 VR II, Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art, Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II and some more.

That and the fact that there's only a 1.25x crop factor difference.

You could also say M43 looks equivalent. However, t's not.

If you took a picture with the E-M1 II and 17mm/f1.2 and told someone it came from a GFX with the 45/f2.8, I doubt many people would call your bluff.

But I am also impressed by the color, and skin tone in particular, the richness of the color, dynamic range, etc ...

I don't think it's the same to say m4/3 is equivalent. The Dynamic range and level of detail is very different. But then we are talking a 2.5x crop difference.

FF vs GFX is only 1.25x crop difference. That's the same as Canon APS-C and m4/3.

which begs the question what do you need such an IQ for ?

@108
I would argue nobody needs that. Really nobody no matter how, or for whom you present it.
But that is not the point if it's your passion/hobby or you work for people that have a passion for such IQ. If the money doesn't hurt, why not go for it? If it makes you happy, or gives you peace of mind towards your client it can be worth it for you personally

"what do you need such an IQ for ?"
For myself, of course :) ... to enjoy the beauty of it. And I feel sorry for those who can't comprehend it.

It's not that people can't comprehend it, its that for most people, value for money is an important criterion when buying equipment - either as a hobby or professionally.

Working commercial photographers need the resolution. My clients regularly print mall posters 4X6 ft. When people walk up to those backlit displays, they can see the difference. I used to shoot with a Canon 5DsR, but the tonal range isn't as smooth. It's works the 2X cost for the Fuji system. With that being said, I take a Fuji X-E3 with me when I travel. Pick the right tool for for your job.

Factor in G Master lenses and neither a good FF mirrorless system or a Fuji GFX MF mirrorless system are affordable to the average enthusiast.

Then why are they making it sound like they have no use for that much quality at all? Even if they could have it for free. It seems like Fuji's "APS-C - smaller, but more than enough" propaganda is backfiring.
I agree that we don't need medium format for snapshots. But I just don't need snapshots. Perhaps for most people that's all they are shooting 90% of the time. But who wants to carry a whole extra camera system just for those few special moments (which often happen unpredictably anyways)? I don't get it. Why would I (a non-professional) have a special (cheaper) camera for shooting crappy images and a good one for the "keepers"? That makes no logical sense. Money is an important factor and that's why I'd rather buy the best tool I can afford, than a bunch of toys for snaps.
My question is (rhetorical, of course) - why come here and preach this kind of humility, instead of exploring the endless horizons of photography and its technological potential? Which is sad (communism level).

@DarnGoodPhotos
"Why would anyone spend FF money when you can get good APSC for less." Because better is the enemy of good. If you are a pro there is a "good enough" defined by your client. As an enthousiast the sky is your limit, why should you limit yourself to an artificial standard, if you enjoy the increase in IQ?

@ecka84
That is why I would argue it is the other way around. Good enough is a real limit for professional photographers, because it wouldn't be a good buisness decision to invest more money than you need to. If you shooting for yourself however, "good enough" is the best thing you can afford without sacrificing something else. So if you have 10.000$ for your hobby, why not spend those and enjoy it.

@DarnGoodPhotos
"Why would anyone spend FF money when you can get good APSC for less."?
Why would anyone spend APS-C money when you can get good 1" for less.
Why would anyone spend 1" money when you can get good 1/2.3" for less.
Why would anyone spend 1/2.3" money when you can get good phone ...
Why? - Because I'm not blind and I want better image quality.

@panther fan
Well, professionals can have all the cameras they want. It's their business investment. But for me it's rather a waste of money. Maybe I could justify having two or three same format bodies though (If I had too much money). Let's say A7III, A7RIII, A7SIII, or three different brand systems because of their unique lens options and features, like D850+28F1.4E+300F4E'PF+... , 5D4/5DsR+11-24L+85F1.2L+MP-E65Macro+TS-E17/50/90/135L Macro+... and A7III with some small lenses and adapters. I could buy the GFX, but it's just unreasonably expensive with very limited modern lens options. While for FF I can rent whatever I want.

Because it's true. 50% more quality for 5 times the price is unreasonable. I'm trying to be self-critical here :). Limited lens selection isn't permanent and the price should drop with time. I'm not going to buy three different camera systems, just yet :). But when the time comes for medium format, I won't be keeping my FF system(s) for snapshots. Another thing is that maybe (soon, I hope) the real 645 (60x45) mirrorless systems will come to be. And that sensor size would make a much bigger difference than current 44x33 pseudo-MF. Besides, many FF lenses have big enough image circle for medium format. I'm just saying that there's no reason for megalophobia apoplexy :).
And communism is about not having more than you need, while those who want to have a reason for needing more, are terminated. Which makes it a degeneratively stupid and self-destructive system/ideology, that's stuck in the heads of a half of world's population.

@108
You are crazy! :))

I don't disagree that the aperture of the lens is fine. But the comparison with V system is skewed since that has a significantly larger "sensor" at 56x56mm vs the 44x33mm small medium format has today. (2.15x times the image area)

Even the 645 system of Hasselblad or Contax for example are still covering a much larger image circle, so it is not unresoneable to expect some brighter apertures from modern medium format. After all it is always good if a system can cover both the "resoneable" lenses, as well as the low light/DOF monsters people sometimes want. After all some MF systems flourished thanks to the succes of that one special fast lens, like the Mamiya 80mm F1.9, the legendary Contax 80mm F2, or the Hasselblad 100mm F2.2 (those would be equivalent to apertures of F1.4/F1.5 and F1.65 on the GFX or F1.2/F1.3 and F1.4 on FF)

I would say it's not a matter of physics as much as a matter of providing very high quality glass for the intended market. A smaller max aperture means less compromises in lens design, which helps keeping the cost below astronomical given the small production runs. Okay, physics has something to do with it.

There is a lot of GFX users asking for a 85/1.4 from Fujifilm. The question there is if they are willing to pay for such a lens designed for the same image quality wide open as, say, the GF 110/2. It won't be cheap.

Lars V hit the nail on the head. Is that tad bit extra bokeh worth the size and price compromise? Probably not.

For those who need the IQ and detail would get this. I did. Sold my D850 and some Nikon lenses incl. the 200mm F2 to get GFX 50S and the 110mm F2 lens and guess what? Never for a second did I regret switching to a new system from Nikon. You really have to use it to believe it.

what now?

@PhilDunn I own a DP2M and a sd Quattro and while they capture a good level of detail, they do not come close to the sharpness and detail of GFX 50S. Maybe if Foveon had more resolution, just maybe. I do wish Sigma will release a FF / MF Quattro soon so I can test them side by side but as it is now GFX 50S wins by a mile.

Yes a larger aperture lens would be nice. @Sheepstar this lens acts like a 35mm F/2.2 lens in terms of aperture equivalency and a light gathering power of F/2.8. So does not really act as an F/1.8 lens, specially not when it comes to gather more light.

Lol anyone not wants quality without having to pay the current crazy high prices of MF gear will need FF ! :P

Dav, note the predictable responses here from the "experts." Any format less than 24x36mm (i.e., miniature format in the mid-20th century) is insufficient, does not have enough pixels, can't absorb enough photons, can't be used for "serious" work by "professionals." But all of a sudden, a sensor larger than their "full frame" is not needed, it's an affectation, no professional really needs it, full frame can do the same, full frame has the same "bokeh", the price is "ridiculous", and on and on. Isn't self-delusion wonderful?

@kodachromeguy, Davinator said "who needs fullframe". I said I can't afford larger than full frame, which is a fact, because I can't. Not that it's not needed, affectation, etc., etc.

Don't bother Yake...they're only trolling.

I'm trolling be ause I think the camera and lens is awesome....and prefer it to FF? Man, you must be butthurt over it.

That's twice you said "butthurt" on the same day. Got a special feeling for that word?

Yake...as you dont support the subscription model...you really shouldnt even be here as you obviously must be using other siftware.

@SmilerGrogan
That would of course be too much of a hassle, and I am definitely not saying that you should replace these extended sample galleries with comparison galleries.

I am thinking more of a 1-3shot comparison extension of this gallery. There is no need to do that with moving subjects.

Please, ban the use of "diminishing returns" from photography related boards worlwide. You could even activate an automatic filter in order to change it with, say, "flying unicorns" and have no loss of meaning in any sentence. :)

@Tical
Lol, but why? It is a standard term in economics and can certainly apply to lenses as well. After all they have measurable performance and a price tag.

Them flying unicorns kick in (horn in?) after anything beyond a kit lens!