I never knew the iPhone takes interesting images. AI advanced that much, eh?

Maybe it is not understood very well that this is a technical review site for photographers. The gallery shows us different lighting conditions, subjects and compositions so you can see what the lens + camera produces. There is minimal postproduction so you can study the sharpness, distortion and contrast of the lens. Nice, ain’t it?

As far as the iPhone goes: try to get that tonal response of the sunset image and the palms image. No chance. On an image taken with an iPhone it would look horrible. But we all knew that, don’t we?

I think, he was kidding folks. At the same time, the sentiment is almost valid when I can never reasonably justify buying this equipment. Anyone feeling generous?

I just read any APSC camera with a good lens is better than any FF camera with an average lens. It is hard to argue with generalizations.

I also read that a camera that produces good colors is better than any camera that produces mediocre colors. That I must agree with.

Yep, aps-c today can produce images in par with full frame and yet we buy full frame

You'll notice the MF difference if you're doing studio work with proper lighting...big difference. You won't notice it so much on these casual snaps.

UncoyDP: between aps-c and ff, I don't see any tangible different at iso 3200. At iso 6400 (something I frequently do), I see good amount of difference between ff and mf.

Full frame is good for only one stop less noise over APSC, and Fuji's MF is good for a 2/3 stop less noise over full frame.

Just sounds like you don’t know how to process Fuji files.

My film years are over, yet I hang onto my cameras.
I still have three 6x7 cameras, the Plaubel, a Pentax 67 with 45, 90, 165 lenses and a Graphic XL superwide body with a 47mm Super Angulon and two RB67 backs.
Now I use Olympus, Canon and Nikon all digital and I paint as well.
I make pictures.

I've got six mamiya RB67 cameras, all the versions, a rz67 and a pile of lenses on my shelves, I wouldn't dream of using them now they are there for nostalgia, never been happier using the gfx50s...

colors here are adobe

GrapeJam, Interesting. Ive tested Sony/Nikon/Canon head to head many times and Canon is by far the most consistently more accurate/natural tones.

I have not tested any Fuji yet though.

I guess since most of my photos are of Asian type skin I will just have to wait and hope the R5 or R6 track a lot better than my 7Dm2 and have equally great skin tones.

One of the worst white balance of all camera brands. Purple skin, and every color is saturated and looks like a painting. Even when you apply Adobe Standard profile, the images from Fujifilm cameras are still not calibrated in terms of color. When you try to correct the purple cast, image turns to an unpleasing yellow color

Sounds like filipradich needs a new monitor. :)

What is wrong with you filipadich?

First you send us to a smart phone page? OK ill bite,
Second, The first photo i click on is just horrid looking.
Skin tone, WB, awful. Worse than I thought it would be.

?

Well dude that was just another dumb thing to say wasnt it.

note: The period means it wasnt a question :p

@filipradich Your photos stink and your eyes are out of register.

I do think I see the purple cast in many photos. It seems to be in some greys.

It doesnt appear to be WB though.

And you shouldnt have linked to those iPhone photos.

This lens definitely has the capability to show excellent subject separation and enhance dimensional depth in images - you just need the right subjects and settings when shooting - Sample: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48849516872_ce7c8280c1_o.jpg

Honestly, I think that this look (feeling) is reproducible on FF (which is quite affordable now), with the 40F2.8 pancake ($179). It seems like 44x33 can't be reasonably justified by the looks and feelings alone, if you don't need or care about the extra image quality it offers.
However, adapting fast FF glass to 44x33 is a whole different story. A proper 85F1.2 on 44x33 looks and feels much closer to medium format. Even a 50F1.4 is worth the hassle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deh01xCwHUg

So Chris for over 30 years you always cutted your MF film to 33x44mm I asume to get that 'Small Medium Format' feeling ;)

Sir! - You do know that the GFX uses the tiniest sensor there is that we call MF and that it actually is just 2/3rd of a stop over Full Frame. The difference is very small.

Regular MF was 40x50mm to reference you to what MF actually is.

So if you are 'used' to that MF feeling you have a poor memory.

Definitely a carrier. Both by how it appears, and because the ocean part of this trip is in the San Diego area. We have carriers...home port for several.

Impressed also by the 'walk (or swim...) into the distances' you can have with the medium format shotsof this gallery -- it's a bit of what's special about a Sigma...

Back in my days, we travelled by horse and I was still able to bring all my painting equipment ;)

Ya, I guess I’m not quite as ancient as you then ...:)

What painting equipment? There are rocks everywhere and you can always cut yourself for paint!

@PhotoRotterdam: Once you crop an image it is already another image. Meanwhile, thank you for the insult.

@obsolescence: The curious thing is that I can actually appreciate 1:1.

What??

Here is what your comment comes across to me as being your philosophy: “camera manufacturers are the only arbiters of the correct aspect ratio of a photograph. All photographs must be shot using the full viewfinder frame only; it is not allowed to change the aspect ratio.”

Is that what you really mean? You are fine with allowing an engineer you will never meet dictate an important artistic element of your images?

And before responding with the same snark as you did with PhotoRotterdam, please think for a minute or two.

PLShutterbug
The only snark in this thread is from PhotoRotterdam, and yourself.

Then just crop it to a ratio of your liking

No, they're not. It's not realistic to expect any photographer to produce top quality work using unfamiliar kit. Instead, they're designed to show how a lens or lens/camera combination behaves in particular conditions and settings you might encounter as a user, so you can make an informed buying decision.

If you want to see what you can do, look up the work of people like Jonas Rask or go to the medium format forum on DPR.

I know what it can do and these photos are nowhere close. So whats the point in posting them?

If you look at the tonal grades in some of the pictures, you see what it does. The lens looks even in sharpness across the frame and with very low distortion. I would say this is a very nice lens if you own a Fuji G serie camera. And I really like the natural looking micro contrast. There is a lot of versatility in what you can do in postproduction.

I think you don’t like the ‘snapshot’ style. Presenting the gallery without a story how it works as a walk-around camera (as you would with a 1” sensor camera) is a bit strange, I agree. But maybe that story will be published (hopefully).

There’s a range of technical scenarios in the gallery. It’s easy to overlay your needs based on what’s presented between subject matter and EXIF info. It’s not supposed to be high level art. It’s a technical evaluation gallery. A very useful one too.

Did you look at the photos at full size? I don't think so. Excellent image quality. At regular size, all photos look like phone photos on the web. That's why for pretty much every single sample gallery there is someone who feels compelled to say "my phone could have shot these." And unfortunately I feel compelled to correct them.

@cjones63, if you have any specific tips on improving my photography, or even some examples of your own that you can point me to, that'd be fantastic. I'm always looking to learn and improve, even if it's just taking fun vacation photos.

I can show you mine xD
https://vsco.co/filipradich/images

@luvenis, @ Luvenis, Clearly not only you but also your patronizing "likes" havent a clue about photography. " It's not realistic to expect any photographer to produce top quality work using unfamiliar kit". You actually think that a professional photographer needs to study a camera in order to produce great images?? This is a child's view. Professional photographers know where & when to point a camera. The only thing anyone needs to know about a camera is its power switch, ISO, aperture & shutter and that does not require a month long study. A new camera for a pro does not inflict Kryptonite-like powers which rob a pro of his skills. A medium format camera is not a travel point & shoot.

It is fantastic to see a patronising person accusing someone else being patronising. You sound very, very frustrated mr. cjones63 .
And I never new it is forbidden to use a medium format camera as a point and shoot. I’d like to know what the origin of that wisdom is. {obviously, you can use every damn camera for every damn use you see fit}.

Anyway, for those who want to see what this combination can do more, there are some nice examples in this video: https://youtu.be/6atnxibeAeU

Using an off camera strobe does do miracles for any brand and the results it gives you (obviously), but there are a lot of portraits-in-a-landscape examples which is probably one of the good use cases next to landscape and street.