Fujifilm GF 63mm F2.8 R WR sample gallery

That’s important information no doubt!

1 week agopermalink

papajohnny

There are some complaints about noise. The DPR comparison tool shows all moderns sensors are pretty close on pixel level: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=nikon_z6ii&attr13_3=canon_eosr6&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.29744553833263493&y=-1.0055146957658823

1 week agopermalink

papajohnny

A very familiar Fuji look. But I'm sure it would be hard to see a difference on a computer if those pictures were taken with XT4 and 33/1.4 lens.

1 week agopermalink

DarkShift

Quality is good, but the lens selection is very limited. I don't consider it true medium format since the sensor size is much smaller than 645 was, and there is only 2/3 stop difference vs 24x36mm sensors.

Dof advantage vanishes due to small max aperture of lenses vs. what is available for FF cameras.

I like the 3:4 format for portraits, but for landscape orientation it seems bit "outdated" because most displays are wider.

1 week ago*permalink

MrBrightSide

645 is not medium format either. If it's not 6x6 or 6x7—or best of all 6x9 roll film—it's not MF.

1 week ago*permalink

DarkShift

It was considered medium format back in the film days.

1 week agopermalink

MrBrightSide

Not at the magazine where I worked. 645 didn’t have the same pizzaz laid out on the light table—we mainly used 4x5 film right up to the digital switchover.
There is still nothing like a well-produced 4x5 transparency.

1 week agopermalink

Greg7579

I own every GF lens but the 63 because I am not a big fan of Nifty 50 equivalent, but I guess I too will get this lens. I like the Medium Format Look and the GFX system is a lot of fun.
Greg Johnson, San Antonio
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

2 weeks agopermalink

Mariano Pacifico

I LOVE FUJI. I'M A HUGE FUJI FAN. It makes me cry I cannot afford the body and it's lenses. 😫😩😱😖😓

Don't get me wrong, Nikon, I got an arsenal of Nikon bodies and AIS Nikkor lenses I use when I shoot film

2 weeks ago*permalink

Portion Control

Close in body style and FoV to my Fuji 35/2. This sample gallery looks like it could’ve been made with that lens on my X-T30...if you take a couple of steps back from the screen.

2 weeks agopermalink

Anastast

It will be great if you add such sample gallery also for the GF 50mm f/3.5.

2 weeks agopermalink

Carey Rose

Unfortunately, we had to send our loaner copy of our GF 50mm F3.5 back to Fujifilm, so we only have this gallery, shot with a GFX 50R. Fujifilm has told us that the 50mm F3.5 will look great at 100MP though, so we'll work on getting another copy back in!

2 weeks ago*permalink

Anastast

Thanks for your reply.

2 weeks agopermalink

nameless0ne

That‘s a nice lens, I have one. But since getting 50 3.5 it has limited use... I am thinking of replacing it with GF 32-64/4

2 weeks agopermalink

Great lens. But $1500 for a 50F2.2 eqv. is a bit much. It's nice and sharp, but it's not perfect. It has some color fringing and double lining (nervous bokeh). Well, that's just my opinion.

2 weeks agopermalink

rick in vegas

Interested in Fujifilm. The lens cost is crazy. Need Tamron to make some.

2 weeks agopermalink

John Tamarych

Tamron? For medium format? Are you joking? Crazy cost..... Maybe you need to look at the price of MF lenses to Hasselblad X or Phase one)))

2 weeks agopermalink

Michael Houghton

Fun fact: Tamron owned a medium format system manufactured well into the digital era. Including a rangefinder system.

They could totally do it.

1 week agopermalink

jackspra

Real nice shots.This lens looks great.

2 weeks agopermalink

Krummj

The 100mp images seem particularly rich, surprisingly. I'd call it film-like but it's just top level digital, which is good in its own way.

2 weeks agopermalink

AKH

Very nice gallery. Just wondering why there is so much noise in the images at ISO 1600.

And wow, the price for the GFX100 body where I live is more than $14.000.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Carey Rose

We use default Adobe Camera Raw noise reduction for lens galleries, which tends to be very light. The upshot is that there's no chance of noise reduction getting in the way of evaluating sharpness and other lens characteristics.

2 weeks agopermalink

I tried processing some 800 and 1600 ISO RAWs from the gallery and there's clearly something strange happening with the luminance noise level, the grain, specially on faces.

2 weeks agopermalink

You guys probably thought of this but when you look at 100mp or even 50mp 1:1, it really exaggerates the noise.

That said it was a bit surprising to see a MF 50mp with so much grain in the faces.

2 weeks agopermalink

Well, the pixel density of the GFX100 and the A7R4 and all the 26mp APS-C is exactly the same.

2 weeks agopermalink

Yes but hitting the 1:1 button to view is not the same. It is much more magnified purely by pixel count.

But again, those very noisy faces at iso1600 are on the 50mp model.

2 weeks agopermalink

No. It should be exactly the same at 1:1 for all those different cameras with similar sensor tech. For example, sample image #21.

2 weeks agopermalink

Pixel size is the same yes. Magnification of the image is not the same.

2 weeks agopermalink

No, you are wrong. If you put the same exact lens on all those camera you will get the same exact magnification at 1:1, because of the same pixel density.

2 weeks agopermalink

You dont understand what i am saying somehow.

When you open a sample image and click the +magnify it goes 1:1.

A 100mp image is magnified from original much more than a 26mp image. On your screen.

This is why noise goes up on a particular sensor depending if you test it as printed to a similar size vs at 1:1.

2 weeks ago*permalink

"A 100mp image is magnified from original much more than a 26mp image. On your screen"
- And the result should be very similar. Why don't you get it ... The GFX100 image is like 4 APS-C images stitched together. The magnification 'muchness' is irrelevant.

2 weeks ago*permalink

I do get it. Thats why I am just stating that many people see more noise than they were expecting simply because 1:1 with a 50-100mp photo is highly zoomed in on their display.
So, its not irrelevant unless you have prepared yourself knowing that.

And then I went on to say, knowing that, there is a lot of noise in that 50mp photo we were talking about.

2 weeks agopermalink

It really is irrelevant. And you are not making any sense. You zoom in just as much on those same size pixels. You just don't get it :)
And I'm talking about 102mp.

2 weeks agopermalink

No you dont get it.

Christ man you are dense. Im not talking about some obscure trickery.

I make perfect sense. Perfectly. And it is relevant. Only you do not see it somehow.
Or you do but just changing goal posts? Its odd either way.

102mp means you still dont understand.

2 weeks agopermalink

You make zero sense to me :). I see no logic in your rhetoric.

2 weeks agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50r&attr13_2=sony_a7riv&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt3&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.8500366568914957&y=-0.17981773947939447

rhetoric now? Odd dude.

2 weeks agopermalink

laukkart

This very particular site gives you guys an opportunity to compare cameras side by side on the studio comparison tool. I am pretty sure it removes most if not all the needs for arguments in this particular case:

"Without NR" (or RAW):

With NR (JPEG):
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50r&attr13_2=sony_a7riv&attr13_3=fujifilm_xt3&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&normalization=print&widget=1&x=-0.8500366568914957&y=-0.17981773947939447

2 weeks agopermalink

Nicolas Det

I just opened the portrait RAF in C1 (ISO 1600, default), and I don't see any noise.

2 weeks agopermalink

AKH

@Nicolas Det I opened the RAF file as well (image 7) and there is lots of noise in the faces if you zoom in to 100%. Note: that is from the GFX 50S.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Nicolas Det

In C1?

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4196150712/fujifilm-gf-63mm-f2-8-r-wr-sample-gallery/5672294583

It is super clean here.

2 weeks ago*permalink

Comparing noise is stupid. You should compare what you get beside the noise, how denoised images look like. A higher quality image can have more noise specks than a lower quality image (at picture level). The amount of noise itself doesn't mean anything without context. Even if APS-C and GFX have the same noise levels, the GFX will still have 4 times more data and quality, because of the 4 times larger sensor.
But in this case the comparison tool doesn't work. You have to compose/frame the shots differently to get a comparable amount of pixels on the target.

@laukkart
Why are you looking at crazy high ISO 25600? What's the point? There is no high quality at high ISOs.

2 weeks ago*permalink

AKH

@Nicolas Det
Yes, that image is quite clean. The one I looked at is the one with the Japanese girls.

2 weeks agopermalink

laukkart

@ecka84 I believe you can choose the ISO you like in that tool for your own comparisons.

2 weeks agopermalink

@laukkart
I prefer downloading the RAW images and do it properly. The "tool" lies :)

1 week agopermalink

Joel Benford

I'm afraid the lens is not to my taste. I think it's partly FOV (I don't like 35mm in FF either), and partly something about the blur in the closer-focussed shots.

Well, I guess I ought to be relieved...

Nice colours, though.

2 weeks ago*permalink

SteBSit

But it is a 50mm f2,2 equivalent

2 weeks agopermalink

Yeah, the bokeh look cheap for a $1500 50F2.2.

2 weeks agopermalink

Joel Benford

Oh, my mistake on the FOV, thanks for pointing it out.

2 weeks agopermalink

Ecka really? Because bokeh is all that matters in photography hahaha

1 week ago*permalink

Well, for me it is important (not all that matters). And it can be hard to compare bokeh objectively. But sometimes it just screams "cheap!".
http://www.bokehtests.com/styled/

1 week agopermalink

ecka84, I can assure you there is nothing cheap about this lens and that you are being silly. I will never, ever, click on that link either.

1 week agopermalink

... photography and blind people ...

1 week agopermalink

ecka84, I can assure you that I'm not blind. I'm just experienced enough to know that bokeh is a parlor trick for true amateurs and this medium format lens by Fuji is complete quality. Also, do you always make such educated observations off of such a minuscule amount of data?

1 week ago*permalink

I know ... you just chose not to see some things, to make yourself feel better about other things. Which is OK, until you come here and start accusing me of not doing the same thing.

Pictures can be the enough amount of data for drawing conclusions. And if I'm paying $1500 for a lens, then I have some reasonable expectations for it. Not just sharpness. I mean, somehow Sony managed to produce a $1400 35F1.4GM with a beautifully rounded 11 blade aperture and quality bokeh (for a 35mm lens). But when we look at some more expensive systems (say Medium Format, or even Leica), their "modern" lenses usually are like from the '80s, barely doing the AF right, slow and noisy, angular aperture, no weather sealing, high price, etc. Well, despite all that, the large camera sensor can still produce beautiful results. But is it really too much to ask for more? Well, you obviously don't care and that's what I call "blindness" in photography, the low expectations.

1 week ago*permalink