Photographer Nigel Danson recently had a chance to use the new Fujifilm GFX 50R for one of his landscape shoots. In this video, he shares his thoughts on the benefits and challenges of using a medium format camera like the GFX 50R for his work. Additionally, he shows us a few prints made from the camera.
To learn more about the prints in this video, watch Nigels video How BIG can you PRINT your PHOTOS?, in which he explores how large you can print photos from the medium format Fujifilm GFX 50R, the Nikon Z7 and the Fujifilm X-T3.
At f/22, with a 50MP sensor that's linearly only 21.67% larger than a fullframe sensor, thanks to diffraction, he's only capturing HALF the subject detail he could record if shooting at f/11 - the aperture at which diffraction begins to inhibit a resolution of 5 lp/mm at the enlargement factor suffered in an unresampled, uncropped 360 dpi print.
That so-called MF sensor measures only 43.8mm x 32.9mm. It's larger than fullframe, but it just doesn't reduce the enlargement factor enough to shoot at f/22 without suffering a degradation of potential resolution due to diffraction.
Just as a fullframe 50MP sensor begins to suffer a loss of resolution at f/9, this GFX 50R sensor, that's only 21.67% larger, will hit the diffraction ceiling at f/11.
He might as well be shooting a Nikon D850 at f/18.
I used to think that photography using a 24mp sensor was more than adequate as it seems over 95% of photographs you see are via the web these days. Then someone had to come along and invent 4k monitors (and that will soon be yesterday's resolution) so the rational for using a medium format digital has become stronger.
Everybody points to prints as the true test of resolution. I notice resolution differences between my 12, 16 and 24mp camera's more on retina displays than I do on prints. We're turning the corner to where pixels are more precise than ink and paper.
Correct. Wait until more photographers get big (at least 32 inch) professional 4K (and up) monitors that are designed for what we do. They are getting cheaper and more enthusiasts will get them as they become more common and even better. Then you will know. (You would be surprised how many "pros" don't have them.) Anyway, I just chuckle when I read every day on DPR that FF is close to MF in IQ and res. I guess it's an instinctive human defense mechanism to spout that nonsensical and just ridiculous talking point that is easy to spew daily in a short phrase on these Boards. But no matter. Mid-range digital cameras (MFT, APSC or FF) these days are all already better than 95% of posters on DPR really need to be better photographers. The rest is all for fun for most of us. For the big "pros"? They know what they need. Well … depending on what a "pro" photographer is these days. But that is a separate subject. https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Well said, Greg. See, when there are no F-words in your messages, it almost seems like we could be pals :). BTW, I'm using a 43" 4K IPS panel and I see all the differences very clearly. BUT, the overblown Apple-style "Retina" is kind of the opposite really. They give everyone an undersized 5K panel (I mean 5K is way too much for 27"), but then they are scaling the 2560x1440 resolution on it by default. And it's kind of easy to spot an Apple user in online photography communities - their images tend to be hugely and destructively oversharpened, because of the scaled-up Retina effect. There are ways to make it right, of course. But I doubt that most users would bother or even care.
Even a relatively cheap 'Pro' photo printer will output at 4-5000 DPI. The very best phone screen will be 600dpi. An 8k (not even available yet) 60 inch TV will be 150PPI... So they are absolutely not as precise.
But regardless, its easy to see the difference in the quality of a camera like the GFX vs another top of the line, even full frame camera, on any medium.
@greg, agreed. I desperately want a a GFX50r but it's a reality check every time I fail to fully take advantage of a 16 megapixel camera. It's rare my photo is as sharp as my sensor and for what I do I'm not ready to switch to being a tripod photographer.
OK ecka84, we are cool. I'm sorry if I insinuated you are trolling Fuji. That is not the case. 4K monitors? I have been involved on the Fuji Board in a discussion about this 4k monitor stuff. The moderator is a great guy and has a 27 inch 5K "Retina" display and he is suggesting that bigger than 27 is not necessary. If think at 4K 32 inch is indeed necessary, but I also edit on the road with a 4K 13 inch laptop, so there is that. MDB1974, your reality check is valid. Ten Grand for the MF camera and 2 or 3 lenses is extreme and probably not necessary for almost anyone. I need to shoot the 50r a lot to know. I just got it. If I don't like it I will sell it and take the loss. But I think I'm gonna like it, and I don't buy all this stuff about FF being just a sliver less good. Anyway, we shall see.....
In my opinion, 2560x1440 or Apple's favorite (but weird) 2880x1800/1620 is plenty for 27". Which is why they are using it on their 5K 27" iMacs. Well, maybe the average computing power of a mainstream machine isn't enough (I mean isn't efficient) for running a true 5K displays just yet (without producing too much heat). But my 7YO PC runs it no problem. The irony is that this whole Retina thing was supposed to make things more clear and contrasty, but instead, the way it is being used, it makes things look softer. Honestly, I only use the full 43" screen for images (including processing) or UHD videos like 4K youtube content (1080p makes little sense in full screen mode). For reading, half of the screen is enough, but for multitasking - OMG it's a miracle. Simply perfect. You can't have that on 27" no matter what resolution.
Thanks Nigel for another truly useful video. I follow both DPR's and IR's sites. Since my final, fine art product is prints, IR's print quality tests in their camera reviews are key to me. From a shear camera competence and IQ point of view, more clean pixels and low light capability are always welcome (and AF-C tracking for action shooters). The restrictions come with weight, size and cost. My budget and willingness to hike around with a ton of equipment are limited so I learnt how to squeeze the last drop of IQ out of my M43 and printing equipment. Fortunately, for photographers like me there is a merciful side to this. I have done a good number of leading arts and crafts shows and gallery exhibits in the NE US. I found out that most buyers have no problem with some technical limitations of large prints of truly beautiful, compelling subjects. Thankfully, most photographers are the toughest judges of their own work!
I have shot half a million images and have never printed one. Other people have printed my stuff but not me. And I just bought this MF camera and three expensive GFX lenses. Hey … monitors are getting bigger and better! 8K anyone? Anyway, the first thing people ask me when I tell them I went GFX: "Do you print big?" Answer - No. Guys, did any of you get the GFX and do not print big? After all, it has 3D pop and micro-contrast that carries down to smaller image sizes. Hey - if the Leica guys can say it then I damn sure can now! 😜 https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Hi, there must be a misunderstanding here. Nigel video is about how large you can PRINT with different systems. No-one is saying that you or anyone else MUST print their photos, but if you do, then his tests are relevant, especially because what shows on any monitor is only an approximation of how a print will look like. BTW, I used to shoot with 2 1/4" and 4x5" gear and gave it up because, with my kind of photography, it was slowing me down. For me (and Nigel I believe), the print is the culmination of the creative photographic process, for you it is the view on an 8K monitor. I am perfectly cool with it.
Well, when 8K hits I will probably be an early adopter if I stick with GFX. But we all have a lot to learn about that. My friends think I am insane (like ecka said I was 😀) because I just bought the 50r and I don't print. Greg, you don't print big. Why did you just leap to MF? Answer -- Not only do I not print big, I don't print at all!
Hi, I have been shooting for over 50 years and along the way have learnt the wisdom of the following points: 1) It's your hobby and honestly earned money, you can use any system you like and don't have to justify your choices to anyone. 2) Don't tell people what they MUST do (= immediate rejection), share what works for you and why and let them make up their own mind (works well with my students). 3) Fine art is a matter of creativity and beauty, not functionality. Declare yourself a fine art photographer and you can do whatever you want (works well with my clients).
For those of you thinking of making the jump, I just did. My first shot this past weekend blew me away because I have never shot MF and the resolution is just stunning (and far higher than FF). I was pixel-peeping the first shot with a pro 32 inch 4K monitor and could not believe what I was seeing. Like Nigel, said, it is expensive. I'm a Fuji-using travel photographer so I am going to miss the IBIS of the XH-1 and will often have to use increased shutter speeds and smaller apertures (less DOF on MF) to get similar hand-held results as my other systems (especially XH-1), but the IQ / resolution is so amazing that I went ahead and bought this MF rig. The size is less profound than you might think and it is not heavy. The lenses are the best in the world. So, I'm looking forward to traveling with this camera and three GFX lenses. I will miss a 70-210 F2.8 equivalent while traveling. MF is not known for its reach. https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
That is regrettable. But I can live with it. Of course I wish the 50r had IBIS and XTrans. But I left FF for XTrans because it is so damn sweet (digital sweet spot). But to each his own. I almost bought the Sony a7riii. But I didn't like the ergo. But it is a truly great camera. The thing is, all the cameras are so damn good now. I said to Hell with it. I might as well get the best of the best. Of course, that won't last long!
Did you apply the 4x focal length rule for the shutter speed with gfx cameras? It's easy to get sharp pictures handheld then. I've dumped all my FF gear for gfx it's another world, I shoot models/people not landscapes...
Note to DPR: Thank you for providing so much new and varied content on your site. You are doing a wonderful job despite a few drunken mistakes. I don't suspect you of any bias towards certain camera brands, and I don't think there is any conspiracy going on (for that see Camera Conspiracies :-)). So keep up the fantastic inspirational work.
The Z7 is so close to the medium format Fuji it really doesn’t make sense to go for the Fuji. The Nikon Kit lens look great but just wait until the Pro lenses to come out and it will be even closer.
No disrespect, and your comment has been repeated often on every thread about the GFX. It is perfectly natural for Sony, Canon and Nikon FF users to say that FF is so close to this camera that it is not worth it. But that is not true. You have to see it to believe it. But MF is certainly not for everyone and Olympus MFT, Fuji APSC or SonCaNikon FF mirrorless will do the trick for almost anyone. All of these modern cameras are amazing. But there is a big difference in IQ and res with this GFX rig. It is a significant jump, and the lenses are quite simply the very best in the World.
I shoot medium format almost daily. I know the difference in quality and these barely medium format cameras are not that much better than a good FF with a quality lens attached. Then you start thinking about the price difference and the lack of a good versital lens line and sorry but the smart money stays with FF for most people.
A FF shooter has a huge selection of very wide focal length in lenses. All the way to very long telephotos. You simply can not and will never match that with these Fuji MF cameras. Personally I can can go from 20mm to 600mm FF equivalent and soon I will have a fisheye. Sorry but you can’t match that and never will. And for what purpose an IQ difference you have to pixel peep to see no thank you.
I agree with you totally that the smart money for 99% of people is phone camera, 1inch sensor, or maybe MFT. Fuji APSC and SonCaNikon FF for the rest, and maybe MF for some money-spending enthusiasts and select pros. But you are kidding yourself if you think MF is not a big jump over your FF in IQ and res. You are repeating a bogus but common talking point that so many defensive and insecure FF owners keep telling themselves since the emergence of Fuji GFX. Just enjoy your camera, or if you are a pro, shoot with the tool you like and need. (Not you, Foto. I'm talking to the Great Unwashed Masses....)
Foto, You are cherry-picking pros and cons. Before I just spent ten grand last month on GFX gear, I knew all the pros and cons. There are many of both. I almost didn't pull the trigger because I'm a travel shooter and I like my IBIS, DOF and reach with the great 70-210 type F2.8 lenses. MF is not as quick and nimble for sure. But the list of MF advantages is long as well, so people spending that much money will have to make tough decisions. But to say that FF is "close" to MF on DR, IQ, res, etc, is a desperate stretch of the imagination and doesn't really need to be said because it is just ridiculous. And I left FF for Fuji XTrans APSC. Sensor size sometimes doesn't matter and sometimes it does.
@Greg7579 No disrespect? I like the idea of a mirrorless MF camera in general. But, the way Fuji themselves are officially bashing FF, by saying nonsense like "FF is not much larger than APS-C, so it's not really any better", while cheating on ISO, pushing this xTrans madness and cooking RAWs with in-camera noise reduction, to make/fake a point and selling their APS-C stuff at FF prices. No disrespect? And then they produce this 44x33 pseudo-MF, which is even less larger than FF (compared to FF vs APS-C difference) and preach that it is much better than anything, while it's much more expensive. And no xTrans all of a sudden? Wasn't it the best thing since the wheel was invented? No disrespect? The GFX may be a great camera, but Fuji policies are disgracefully shameful. What the next lie would be? GFX cures cancer? "defensive and insecure FF owners" - What are you talking about? GFX is way out of our budget range. Mostly nobody cares about GFX or Leica or Hasselblad, so get over it.
Foto, it is no problem Man. We are arguing about FF vs MF on a camera equipment Forum. What else is there to do and who else would even care? My wife thinks I have lost my mind. She likes her phone shots. Anyway, that's what these Boards are for. Hey - I just realize that I have very often said that one can barely tell the difference (or not at all) from Fuji APSC to SonCaNikon FF, and I really do believe that for 99% of my images. So I guess I should accept that a lot of FF guys are going to make that same argument when comparing FF vs MF. But I know what I just saw on my monitor after getting this beast. Or maybe I am subconsciously trying to justify the ten grand! 😀 But what about the 3D Pop and Micro-contrast? I've been telling Leica guys they were nuts for years for their magical quality claims. (I love Leica and had one once as a younger man.) But I think I just saw it with this 50r! (Ten Grand will do that to you, you are thinking...).
44x33 is better than FF, but not twice better, so it's price is unjustifiably high, because with today's technology we can't make it any cheaper. Well, unless we could glue together four APS-C chips. FF vs APS-C difference is even more obvious and all your attempts to bury it under a ton of superstitious magical BS only makes you a person of questionable sanity. 3D Pop is nonsense, always was. An image is simply a matrix of colored pixels and nothing else. No 3D there. If you are talking about lifelike representation of reality in your image, then it's simply called "image quality" and Fuji's waxy xTrans is pretty terrible at that. Plus, its praised film simulations have little to do with natural colors. It's a 3D Wax Factory.
Ecka, I was about to agree with your comment that it is not twice as good as FF and thus the expense seems absurd, but then you said I was insane so that causes me to verbally spar with you some more. But I don't know whether to try to convince you of my sanity or to just focus on defending this fine camera from all of you FF attackers. It's like the GFX has hurt your feelings or somehow is a blow to your opinion of your own gear. It will be OK. Just take a few deep breaths. Fuji can be very intimidating, but also very addicting. Believe me, I know.
If anything, I'm not attacking the GFX. I'm pretty sure that camera engineers and marketers are different people. I'm criticizing lies, misinformation and brand worshiping propaganda. There's too much of it already. So, please, do not take my criticism personally. You are not alone. The Internet is full of "Fuji this ... Fuji that ..." and people actually believing all this Fuji related nonsense. Maybe I'm just allergic to BS.
You obviously have some kind of strange grudge against Fuji, are trolling for some rival brand or perhaps just having some internet fun. Not sure which, but I seriously doubt if you have ever purchased any Fuji gear.
I've explained why and what's wrong with it. Stop ignoring facts. And I'm not going to purchase any F-gear anytime soon, until some things change. And such constant untargeted Fuji propaganda from everywhere is really annoying, if not insulting. I mean, advertisement is fine, when it's not total BS.
Good Lord you are brave. I have 5 Fuji cameras and 17 Fuji lenses. My experience with CaNikon was similar. I know what I'm talking about based on experience. Now I know what is going on here with you and these ridiculous rants. You don't have a clue about Fuji and probably little else. Do you own any photography gear? I don't normally engage with trolls like this. But My God, is there no Moderator on this forum? Obviously not. This is sad. Moderator please. Hello DPR. Moderator? This kid has broken at least 10 rules today.
See, that's why you are a troll, not me. If your rules allow to post BS and lies, but not debunk them, then we don't need such rules. How does owning some Fuji toys make you an absolute expert in everything and gives you the right to preach your ways undisputedly? We are all equal here. If you don't like criticism - don't post.
Greg7579 he's got a point, while I'm getting on well with gfx I'm so underwhelmed with the xt3, I got carried along in the hype and it's so average and overrated, just another camera but the reviews from here and others constantly bang in about how great Fuji are, it is a little nauseating after a while
Big Sensor - You bought the XT-3 and don't like it? That is rare. I have heard of it happening but that is rare indeed. What lenses did you get with it? I have the GFX 50r and a few lenses now, but I will no doubt stay with my Fuji APSC gear for travel shooting purposes, but we will see. You shoot GFX and then decided to get a Fuji XT-3 for travel use or just some flexibility? I am surprised you don't like it, but it happens with any camera. I have talked to so many good photographers (hundreds maybe?) over the years who decided to augment their Canon or Nikon FF DSLRs with Fuji gear and they liked it so much they just left CaNikon completely. There are a lot of GFX shooters that also shoot what I shoot (XT-3 / XH-1, X100F) and great Fuji XF glass -- the best glass in the world. Hope you like the GFX. Do you think it is far better res than FF or just a "sliver" of better res as some say? Does GFX blow you away, or are you wavering? Talk to me Big.
Greg7579. Lots to come back on, yes I sold all my Leica gear for a gfx50s 63mm and 110mm, I shoot models on purpleport and always use a tough monopod and I’m absolutely blown away by it, all these reviews saying there’s only a slight difference over full frame you wonder if they’ve actually used one, it’s on another level, to take a portrait of a model with coloured contact lenses say, then be able to zoom in and see every pixel of dye on the surface of the contact lenses, every bit of dust of makeup foundation, eyelashes so sharp you could cut yourself looking at them, it’s a real triumph. I’ve just sold all my canon full frame now to buy another 50s body, I just looked at it all and I’ve no desire to use it after the gfx. Desperate for the 100-200 and 45-100 they will make shoot8ng people so much easier. I’ve found applying the 4x rule to focal length and shutter speed lets you shoot handheld fine. I suppose the xt3 just can’t come anywhere near all this. Got to sleep midnight in UK
Yes. APS-C is just bad and disappointing in comparison. No matter what camera brand. But you can get some amazing detail with modern FF and some nice prime lenses. Many professionals say that GFX images are mind-blowing, but in many cases they are comparing GF63 to something like 24-70L on an old 5D3 or 1DX. Which is wrong in so many ways. Why not put it against the Z7 and a nice $1500 40or50 at equivalent apertures? The Sigma 40F1.4 is only $1400. It's a heavy "beast", but it is a very nice lens (I've heard^^). I wonder, maybe it is possible to adapt it (sensibly) on the GFX. I've seen people using Canon's 40F2.8 pancake on GFX (guess how much money they have saved this way) and many Canon primes cover the entire 44x33 sensor, because it's not so much larger. There's even an EF-GFX AF adapter. I doubt that a GF zoom lens on GFX would beat FF with a decent prime lens on it. But I might be wrong.
They say that GFX 32-64 is really amazing, so I bought it. Haven't really used it yet. Have had the camera 4 days but the weather has been really bad and I just haven't been out much. Will shoot it soon.
Interesting presentation, but... Most photos do not require ultra-fine detail to make their impact. Subject, composition, light & shadow or color dynamics, and especially the emotional energy, all matter far more than pure resolution. And, the bigger the print, the more people will stand back to look at it, negating the advantage of very high optical resolution.
Reminds me HASSELBLAD made 3 softer graduated filters to hide facial blemishes as their ZEISS lenses were razor sharp. However NASA did use HASSELBLAD perhaps because astronauts and cosmonauts wear big gloves for some reason. MINOX out of the question but preferred by professional spies.
The camera looks beautiful and produces beautiful photos. I have looked at these and Pentax Medium Format cameras a couple of times. I felt that they were not too expensive over some of the FF models for serious enthusiasts (may be, it's the other way around, those FF models are so expensive that a Medium Format gets mentioned!!)
However, I agree with Nigel here. When I reviewed all the samples and the resolutions I need, even the 36+ MP FF cameras seemed an overkill for me, leave alone Medium Format.
A 24+ MP FF will be the limit of my spending. This one would be fun to shoot with... may be, rent for a special occasion or short trip.
For those who have it, or planning to buy one, enjoy it and share nice photos. It does make a great combination with an APSC camera in terms of difference in both sensor size and resolution.
I've changed my mind. I would like Fuji to make a beautiful full frame camera. A Tactile beauty to rival a Leica, like a contact g2. I just am not excited by the big bricks. I thought I would be. Or even bette,r an x-pan like cracker.
I doubt Fuji will start a third lens line, just to get into this highly competitive "FF" market. Although I think the development of a fullframe fixed lens version X100F would have made more sense than a X-H1.
"obscurelines I've changed my mind. I would like Fuji to make a beautiful full frame camera. A Tactile beauty to rival a Leica, like a contact g2."
Fuji will never go FF. The SonCaNikon FF wars will be observed by Fuji but not participated in. They make what I think are the best cameras in the world with their APSC stuff (certainly the best glass) and they moved past FF with MF. That is their strategy and it is brilliant in my opinion. https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Why would they? The only difference between this MF and FF is the sensor. And 3000 dollars. And I doubt the sensor is 3000 dollars more expensive. Same goes for lenses. TLDR - margines rule in niche market
Fuji is already participating in the FF wars but they brought a knife to a gun fight. I won’t buy a Fuji XT3 or later model because I will buy a FF mirrorless instead. I won’t buy a MF Fuji because I will buy a FF instead. It is going to get real tough for Fuji as these FF mirrorless cameras really start rolling out. Their apsc line can’t comlete on image quality and their MF cameras can’t compete on price or lens range.
Foto, almost everything you said there is completely wrong, but please buy whatever camera you want. That's what I do. They are all really good and already far better than most of us can be as photographers. You lost me when you said Fuji brought a knife to the gunfight. I wonder why so many high-end shooters left CaNikon for Fuji, like I did? You only know what you know. And what you know is what you have shot. Let me clue you in. Fuji XTrans APSC is the digital sweet spot, especially when paired with the World's best glass. MF? We will see what happens with MF.
We left Canon and Nikon for Fuji and others because they didn’t have mirrorless cameras to compete with. Now they do and you are seeing they are very serious about it. Times have changed my friend.
Why so many videos? I don't have the time to watch a 20mn video - what's wrong with an article (with photographs of course), which takes a lot less time to read, and may contain more information, as you don't have to listen to the patter of the authors?
The videos are additional content. No writing resource has been diverted to video, so you can ignore the videos and still get all the content we used to produce.
I’m loosely with User7004916284 (-catchy moniker btw) on this, there is an increasing preponderance of video content on DPR. Of course we don’t have to view them, and I mostly I don’t. But on those occasions that curiosity has got the better of me and have watched one, I’ve been left with anti-climax and disappointment. I find myself feverishly mining the favourites folder to read articulate and informative content on the subject in question.
I do visit this site for information, not entertainment.
There is the argument that video content doesn’t affect the usefulness of the site, because it’s ‘outsourced’. But Chris & Jordan are presumably paying their bills; and dpr readers aren’t getting any lens reviews (or scanners, printers, tripods etc.).
I wholeheartedly agree with User7004916284. And as for "well you don't have to watch them", more and more content is becoming video based and less and less is becoming written. So I'm getting less and less to choose from.
And as User7004916284 says, it just takes way way way too long to get the same information as if I read the same results.
"or run it at 1.5 times regular speed to get to the end quickly" Or not run it at all and get to the end REALLY quick :)
For my taste and this particular variety of information, the video simply is filler diluting the information content. The fellow certainly makes good images, but the information content could have been reduced to one page or less.
I appreciate the fact that lots of people don't like to read. And video is the way to reach them, but for me this is just not helpful.
Mysterious. Loves the image quality, Says the lenses are sharper than the Nikons he owns yet he’s kind of down on the system as are some of the editors at this site. It’s not cheap, but as with any high-performance piece of equipment small improvements come with outsize prices. Why is no one showing this camera the love it deserves?
Actually he is. His worlds more or less: Love the quality, would love to have it, but as he needs something more versatile he would stick to the T3 & Z7 combo, as the difference in IQ does not justify the price and bulk of having it added to the existing kit.
Because it's very expensive and esoteric and when it comes down to money (as it does for all the wealthiest of enthusiasts) it just doesn't make sense.
I really see this more as a rental camera for that once-in-a-lifetime trip to the Galapagos or Yosemite in winter or Mt. Jackson while there's still a glacier there. Or with proper coordination, a couple of photographers could split the costs, rent the camera for a week ($350 to $450 with lens from lensrentals.com) and create whole amazing portfolios for themselves and vault their careers to the next level.
I think that it is due to the fact that the FF cameras are so good in recent years, and the ML has made them so small, a Medium Format is an overkill for a majority of photographers, including many professionals. However, when there is that need for your work, you know it.
In one way, it is similar to phones killing dedicated entry level DSLR cameras. Not everyone needs that marginal quality increase or spend the extra money. Besides that, nothing wrong with them.
Remember, it's a bigger sensor then say the one in the Sony A7R3. The pixel pitch is 5.31 vs 4.5 on the Sony, so the effects of diffraction at f22 wouldn't be as bad as that on the Sony.
Still, point taken. To be honest I don't know why anyone would use f22 on a lens when f11 everything in focus and with minimal diffraction....and if it doesn't it's easy to focus stack with a digital camera.
@wildbild No, that's not correct - you have significant diffraction issues at f/16 and beyond - as you'd expect from a larger sensor format. This is what I mean by 'MF experience' - because without that you're saying 'shoot f/22 to get it all sharp'.
For my uses (GFX50S shooting landscape) F11 = optimal, F16 = completely acceptable although not optimal; F22 = noticeably less sharp when pixel peeping but still acceptable if it fits the aesthetic of the photo. In other words, if I had to use F22 I would use it without hesitation and add some extra deconvolution sharpening if required.
No disrespect to Nigel. He is a fine photographer. I enjoy his videos and we all make choices. But I don't understand the F22 at all. Maybe he can explain. There is no way he should have shot F22 in that situation. It makes no sense. I was watching the video and when he said F22, I stopped it ran it back, and said … no way Nigel. Especially not on a camera review where you are exposing your public to arguably the best camera in the world for their first time.
I really really like Nigel’s work and love his videos. He’s excellent talking about his work and his insights are very inspiring. He often says that he is reluctant to do gear reviews and I understand why. First, he is not very good at it and second, it is always about personal preference. I find the price argument a bit weak and I find difficult to understand why he felt the camera felt foreign when he has been using Fuji X cameras for a while. The image testing is about shallow too. Anyway, I cannot justify toe get a GFX camera but I would definitely get one if I made my living from landscape photography.
Agree with most of what you said, except I think the personal approach is fine. There are too many 'polished' reviewers who aren't really working professionals. As far as the cost angle, have you priced out what a new setup with lenses would be? It ain't cheap, and if you can get 95% of a GFX at half the cost it is a valid argument as long as it meets your needs.
One other thing, landscape photographers do what they do more because they love the work, not because they're making gobs of money.
It was meant "more portable". Can't edit. More portable than my F mount 24-70mm f2.8. The Z 24-70mm f4 is really small for a FF camera (relatively of course) when it's stored.
@goodgeorge - ever lifted at Sigma Art 14 mm F1.8? No I thought not. A bag full of Art lenses is a daunting proposition for anyone that walks more than a few miles in hill country.
Always very inspiring those reviews of top gear in professional use!
There is another interesting video review behind the link to Nigel's YouTube channel (HOW BIG?), comparing printouts of GFX 50R with Z7 and X-T3. Differences only become visible when looking closely at very large prints (50 inches). Then the X-T3 falls behind in the image center -- being limited with half the resolution. Both: X-T3 and Z7 with AF-S 16-35 fall behind at the edges. Would be interesting to see how the new Z 14-30mm compares ...
i finally got a chance to pick one up for a few minutes at b&h and its got volume in the hand,, yet was unexpectedly light to my expectation, seems much less dense than its "little brother " the xpro2,nice vf too
Thorgrem: the D850's sensor isn't tiny by any rational assessment. The GFX's is 68% bigger but, as it happens, ISO 64 allows the Nikon to tolerate around 68% more light than an ISO 100 exposure on the Fujifilm. The result is that the differences are extremely small.
Of course that doesn't make up for the resolution difference or say anything about lens quality, but the Reilly is correct to say that ISO 64 let's the D850 be competitive.
Richard, Richard. You sound like a Nikon apologist. Arguing that they are equivalent when the sensors are of significantly different size is absurd regardless of resolution or ‘light gathering capacity’, and you know it is. There are a whole range of differences relating to sensor and pixel size. Arguing otherwise is as absurd as arguing the merits of a MFT sensor compared to full frame. I suspect that what you mean is that the 850 hits the sweet spot for you. Fine. But don’t seriously try to downplay the advantages of the MF sensor over the 850
Richard and Reilly are correct. At the end of the day, the file quality difference is minimal.
This mirrors my experience in the field. I rented a GFX 50S for a job I had this last fall and at ISO 100 the sensor-level difference of the Fuji at ISO 100 and my D810 or a D850 at ISO 64 was minimal. When I was processing the files in Capture One, I expected to be blown away at the difference, when in fact I just kept saying to myself "I should have just used the D810". GFX locked up twice on that job too.
Worst part is, my client I know won't be able to tell a difference despite these images being printed 7 feet wide, and the 4:3 ratio chip of the Fuji meant I was cropping out more information than if I would have just shot a D850 to begin with.
It's not 2004 anymore where a FF 35 was an anti-aliased 11MP and the Hassy's were a naked 16-bit 31MP. That's a REAL difference in color and resolving power. These small chip MF's just aren't enough of a difference to justify the price penalty.
Richard that comparison review is between an 810 and a Pentax, not the Fuji, and it centres on DR only. We all know that there is more to a camera than dynamic range. The move of manufacturers to produce 'affordable' MF cameras is to be applauded. It is a pity to see it downplayed on a site like DPR by narrowing the advantage to DR only.
You might be right Richard, but i do think, this old D850 vs GFX50S/R Comparsion isn't 100% comparable. ISO 64 vs 100 is a advantage, but the GFX Series do have a much bigger, 44x33mm Sensor, vs 36x24mm Fullframe.
I do prefer the more crisp details, and IQ from the GFX50R/S Sensor anytime *if* i could afford it - posted this 1:1 Comparsion here more than twice since it was being published:
Again, the Differences are subtle, but into huge prints being noticeable.
Conclusion: The D850 is an excellent DSLR, if not the best, even 2019...but the GFX-50R/S are in a League of their own, like written before. And soon, the Difference to "Fullframe" would be bigger, the Gap, because Fujifilm does bring the 100 MP GFX-100S soon.
@Richard Butler your statement is misleading because you need to have longer exposures with the D850 at ISO 64. The larger sensor means that you can shoot with the GFX at higher speeds, and therefore handheld more readily than with the D850. PS, 68%? I thought it was more like 56%.
Just to correct my earlier numbers: the sensor of the GFX is 68% larger and the ISO 64 / ISO 100 difference means you can give the Z7 58% more light, so it doesn't fully make up the difference (though some or none of that remaining 10% may be made up by the Z7's sensor being a generation newer).
The 100MP (BSI) chip Fujifilm says it'll use in the next generation camera will offer a clear advantage over full frame. But at present, Nikon's ISO 64 mode should let it close much of the quality gap (the Fujifilm will tend to be sharper but more prone to moiré, because of its spaced-out microlenses)
Marc - it's such a shame, given how much effort went into those comparisons, that they didn't try ISO 64 on the Nikon. The only way it can compete is by being given more exposure than the Fujifilm (which, at ISO 64, it should be able to tolerate). Also, why use the same F-number on two different formats?
KEnrique - Actually, in many circumstances, you don't.
If you shoot the GFX at, say, F22, 1/100th, ISO 100, then you can shoot the Nikon at F18, 1/100th and ISO 64. You'll get essentially the same image (albeit one in 3:2 and the other in 4:3).
It seems likely that I'll be reviewing the 50R, so this is a comparison I'll try to do (though we'd get much better images if Nigel shot the comparison for us).
To be clear, though, none of what I'm saying includes considerations of lens quality (I've been hugely impressed by the GFX lenses I've used), nor real-world usability. Just that the sensor size difference doesn't make nearly as much difference as it sounds like it should (obviously if the next-gen GFX could offer ISO 64, it would pull much further ahead of any full frame cameras).
cksin, its for your information nothing about BS talk but because of the facts. The GFX 50R/S and also Hasselblad X1D/Pentax 645Z share all a 44x33mm 50MP Sensor, which does give better tonality rendition, than any 36x24mm Sensor yet, and 50 MP is also a slight resolution advantage, over both of the D850 and A7R III, please see the samples above for yourself.
Faster lenses are coming for the GFX System, and Fujifilm does have a decades old history of making medium format lenses - for their own, compact various "Texas Leica" Professional MF cameras back then, and also as a Lens Supplier for Hasselblad before, and their MF System, analogue of course, back into its day. That is nothing about BS and these kind of chitchat talk - just these facts.
And i do prefer the way, the GFX renders images, vs other FF Systems, also Film Simulations..Fuji does make excellent Lenses, i'd love to own a GFX, plus a Leica M Monochrome & M10 with matching lenses, if i would being wealthy. Good Evening.
Richard, thank you very much for being so kind, to answer some questions here, and to participate into this discussion, very appreciated. I hope everything is being clearer now for the other guys. :)
This is the classic debate of cutting edge 35mm sensor tech vs older 645 crop MF tech. Sort of like how their were comparisons between the Sony 36MP D800 and the Kodak MF sensor in the 645D at the time(though that also had CCD vs CMOS at play).
While many scenarios it might not be noticeable there are times where the MF does seem to hold a certain magic to it.
Just look at the prints the FF Nikon was hanging in right there with the Fuji MF. Just not enough of a difference to over come the price and lack of lenses.
Why doesn't DPR shoot a few landscapes in different lighting and subjects (midday, dusk, high contrast, low contrast, etc) with a Nikon Z7, a Sony A7rIII, and a Fuji GFX 50R side by side showing the same scene taken at the same time, and end this debate once and for all?
The original poster said "D850 at ISO 64 just as good" as if that answered all questions and closed all gaps, and you sprang to his defense. And then you said his claim was merely that "iso 64 lets the d850 be competitive." No, that's not what he said. Why the aggressive defense and spin?
You're quite right to cite the resolution advantage, at least. Jim Kasson has done a lot of very careful testing of the GFX with native lenses vs the A7RII (D850 has only 3.8% more res) using _Otus_ lenses, and the results WRT to resolution have not been close. At all.
I hope you have not already assumed your conclusion in the upcoming review/comparison. It sounds like you've got your chips all in on FF 35, for some reason.
Richard when you do this test shoot the lenses at their optimum F Stop on both systems. Should be around 5.6 Let alone diffraction prone F-stops.
"Richard Butler You're welcome, Marc. And, as I say, it'll be interesting to shoot the GFX 50R alongside the Z7 and check that the theory still holds true."
You guys just keep on telling yourself this nonsense. There is a big difference. It is a big jump in IQ and res. Look, just don't buy the camera. It is very expensive. You don't have to justify a very sensible decision (to stay APSC or FF) by telling yourself complete falsehoods. It makes perfect sense for most people to shoot their Fuji APSC or SonCaNikon FF rigs. Enjoy. No need to keep repeating that little white lie. https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
GotoDengo - I didn't mean to come across as aggressive. I wasn't so much trying to defend anything as correct misinformation. If a smaller sensor can tolerate more light, that can, to some degree, make up for its smaller size.
It's not spin, it's not brand-specific, it's just physics.
And, given we've already tested the (very closely-related) GFX 50S, it's not premature for me to have a fair idea of what the 50R can do. It's not about having a preference for one format over another, it's a question of understanding the situation.
Richard, you do good work, but I find it hilarious that some guys on here are calling the 50r a "crop MF" and making all of these zany FF comparison statements. If you want to take a stab at something, just call it a "crop". That is just another way of stating in a simple talking point that anything not "FF" is not worthy and now they are going the other direction with that "Crop MF" nonsense. As far as physics and "facts" go, that depends on how you slant it to whatever argument you are trying to make. And whenever a journalist (I don't mean you) says, "The fact of the matter is that...," you can bet that 75% of the time some non-factual bent-up opinionated spin is about to come at you very fast. Not you, Richard, I'm talking generally. I need to read your review of the 50S. I didn't read it before just buying the 50r and 3 GFX lenses. I probably should have. That way I can tell if you are going to like the 50r or not. I kind of doubt it.
I can guarantee you that you'll never see me use the term 'crop MF' about the GFX. I spent a part of the 50R article rubbishing the suggestion (there's only really one sensor format larger and it costs tens of thousands of dollars: it's asinine to pretend silicon should be made the same size as film could).
But it's arguably equally silly to assume that there's some magic to a larger format beyond its ability to capture more light. That's where the majority of a larger format's advantage comes from (whether comparing 1"-type to APS-C or FF to 44x33). If a smaller format has a way to tolerate additional light to close some of that gap, it's important to acknowledge that.
While I can understand Nigel's reasoning I don't share his opinions. I have been using the GFX 50R for almost 2 months now and it is by far the best digital camera I have ever used. It's not only its built quality and the look of the images, the GFX 50R is just a joy to use. To me at least the whole camera, the button layout and menus just make sense. It's expensive compared to smaller formats, compared to other medium format cameras it's a bargain. I am not sure if links are allowed but here is one with my take on the GFX 50R: https://irelandinpictures.wordpress.com/2018/12/06/new-beginnings-the-fuji-gfx50r-week-1/
nice pics. And I also love the Time shutter setting, especially that as you dial in the amount of time (even with 13 stops of ND filters screwed onto the lens), the viewfinder in real time shows you what your image will look like at that amount of time.
I followed your link and read the article. Very nice pictures but I do not understand why you see this TIF file 72dpi as a limitation. This is just a figure and has nothing to do with the actual resolution of the image. You can edit this metadata and change it to 300dpi if you want.
Karroly: It's more an annoyance than a limitation. If I can't get a "ready to use" image right out of camera I can as well go the usual route and process from RAW in Lightroom (or any other RAW converter).
So even though I hate video reviews (I can read a whole lot faster than they can talk), I click on "would I get one" link anyways to see what he says. He opens his mouth and says "it's expensive". Stop video and close video. I don't know a time when medium (or "digital medium format") cameras were ever cheap. And I don't think they ever will be. If he would have at least compared it to something like a Sony A7rIII for the same scene to see what you get for it, the video review may have been worth something.
Did you reply to the wrong comment thread? OP asked about comparison with Sony, I noted Nikon was covered (and IMHO is a better comparison due to lower ISO). Nobody went "but Nikon".
@John: Who messed up your day today? He compared it to what he had at hand as a sideline. Yes he had to mention price.. because marketing is trying to tell you that this is an "affordable camera". Which to me as a system it isnt.
@CaPi Well it's just that I'm not that fond of video reviews anyways but I thought I'd give this video a chance. I expected an executive summary of what features he liked / didn't like about it. But to start out by saying "it's expensive" and keep saying over and over it's expensive, well duh a quick click on B&H Photo could have told me that. Waste of time, what was he doing, running out the clock?
Without IBIS, camera shake at the traditional 1/f shutter speed reduces the effective resolution to a mere 6 MP. You can use a higher shutter speed by increasing the ISO, but f/4 isn't going to help much. In either case, you lose something in the process.
With IBIS, I find much fewer occasions when a tripod is necessary, even for landscapes. A tripod is still necessary for the ultimate sharpness, depth of field, and consistency between shots. The last is important when taking bracketed shots or stitched panoramas. Even with a high frame rate, minor variations when hand-holding, require more cropping once the images are registered.
And yet, millions of photographers for about century has made sharp photos with everything from large format to pocket cameras WITHOUT IBIS. Correct me, did Ansel Adams have IBIS on his camera :-)?
What is with people who cannot adapt to cameras anymore? Why do they insist that the camera HAS to do everything for them or it's not worth anything? That photographers are now just passive blobs that barely turn the camera towards something and then the camera has to do everything else now?
With the GFX 50S set to EFCS I can handhold 1/FL, and most (90% of) shots are tack-sharp 51MP, at 1/(FL*2) 100% are tack-sharp - and I mean pixel-level tack-sharp.
That's real information.
You do not need a tripod with the 50S or 50R to achieve ultimate pixel-level sharpness for landscape or portraits etc, in normal daylight. Ok you would with the 645Z, but not with the EFSC of the 50R or 50S.
Before I tried the 50S I thought like you, a tripod would be must, it isn't. I can hand-hold the 50S (51MP) at slower SS than my other FF and APSC gear, actually handholding I can get pixel-level sharp shots at slower SS than my APSC with IBIS - sounds odd I know, but true.
Don't underestimate handholding ability of the 50R.
"And yet, millions of photographers for about century has made sharp photos with everything from large format to pocket cameras WITHOUT IBIS."
Er, yes. But all Large format cameras were used on a tripod! To get the best quality from any other camera you had to use it on a tripod. See the pattern? What he would like to be able to do is be more spontaneous and get sharp images hand-held, in other words, have greater flexibility - perhaps when the light is rapidly changing. Is that so hard for you to understand?
Additionally, the MP of these cameras is increasing, and to get sharp images at 50mp you more or less need IBIS or a tripod, as he demonstrated. You can get reasonably sharp images hand held, but that is not good enough for modern standards, where people like to luxuriate in sharp detail.
With this larger sensor, would cranking up the ISO a little bit for faster shutter speed, be less of an issue than doing the same with, say, a crop sensor camera?
@wolfloid with the GFX using EFCS you can use this camera handheld at 1/(FL*2) and get every shot pin-sharp to the pixel level, I know, I use this camera.
Please do not propagate what you think you know, try the GFX handheld, then tell us what you know - as I do.
The GFX loves handheld work, and produces 100% tack-sharp results at 1/(FL*2). Actually I use 1/FL and get tack-sharp results, but I recommend 1/(FL*2) to others as I don't know their techniques - i.e. if you are breathing heavily and jab the shutter button use 1/(FL*2), if you are calm and gently squeeze the shutter button 1/FL.
Yes 1/(FL*2) or 1/FL, you do **NOT NEED A TRIPOD** with the GFX to achieve the best results possible with this 51MP camera. How many more times do I have to say this to photographers who have never used the GFX and preach tripod rules!
Adams used a tripod, and for 8x10, a large, heavy tripod, strapped to the top of a car or mule. You can also use a faster shutter speed, at least 3x as fast as the 1/f "rule."
"Tack sharp" is a term misused as often as "mint condition" for used equipment. Not only do you need a tripod for pixel-sharpness with a 50 MP camera, you need an electronic first shutter (or lens shutter), mirror up (if applicable), critical focusing, and a remote release. IBIS must be off. An 8x10 camera is lucky to deliver 40 lp/mm. Much of Adams' work was presented as contact prints, which forgive the diffraction at f/64, favored by the eponymous organization.
"Not only do you need a tripod for pixel-sharpness with a 50 MP camera"
...you do NOT need a tripod, pixel-sharpness is achieved at 1/(FL*2) for all shots handheld with the GFX 50S & 50R. I know, I use it.
"you need an electronic first shutter"
...yes EFCS.
"and a remote release"
...not required.
With the GFX 50S & 50R as I keep saying you do NOT need a tripod for SS of 1/(FL*2) and faster, though I can shoot at 1/FL and all of my shots are pixel-sharp (but I have good technique). And yes I view them at 100% and 200% pixel level (judged against tripod based shots).
This is from my experience with the camera, others can say what they wish, but I thought relaying this here is important - as real information.
John when spending lots of money on a camera I want the most bang for the buck. IBIS is great so if it is available why not buy the camera that has it.
@Foto64 1. even when IBIS is off it is still drawing power to keep the IBIS actuators stationary (rather than moving). 2. many of us do see negative consequences of having a 'floating sensor' rather than a sensor fixed 100% accurately in place. Professional users do notice random edge softening, random soft shots etc with FF IBIS cameras; 'enthusiasts' may not. 3. handholding at 1/(FL*2) is mostly sufficient for us, if not, we use a monopod to use SS 1/(Fl/3), or we add more light (otherwise even with IBIS low light often equals v.flat natural light or v.contrasty artificial light). 4. most pro users do not want IBIS, I certainly would pay more (+£3000) for the same camera without IBIS if given the choice.
I have owned/own two cameras with IBIS and it has never been anything but great. I can hand hold images at extremely slow speeds which means I don’t need a tripod. Looking at the Nikon Z camera images I see very good edge to edge sharpness.
1) IBIS has limited usefulness (meant mostly for video which I dont use) 2) draws more power, so we need larger batteries 3) makes the camera bulkier 4) I have to pay for yet another feature I will never use
I think it was a huge mistake from Fuji not having IBIS in their GFX system, especially since they showed in one of their apsc bodies they do have the technology. Most of their lenses aren't stabilized either.
You are not allowed to use a tripod at many locations.
Seems like most users will only be aware of IBIS because one, it says it on the box and two, geez that pic is sharp for how dim the light was. The power draw from the IBIS motors is a pretty small slice of the total battery drain in a digital camera. WRT bulk, I'm not buying that argument after shooting my original E-M5. It's pretty compact. Any slight increase in size is worth it for the large increase in tripod-deficient versatility.
@Foto: I was thinking along the samle lines if the IBIS could make me get away with not using a tripod. If I need to to that the weight of the gear is high any way... Fact is I dont have one and havent had the chance to try.
Street photography is all about the moment and social commentary. Landscapes are all about composition and end-to-end perfection. While some may dabble in both, they are generally irreconcilable.
@Ed: What are you trying to tell me. Thats why I would need someone to tell me how the camera handles doing street or travel. You cant tell using it for landscape
Fujifilm's GF 50mm F3.5 lens promises stellar performance in a very compact package. In some ways, this lens mounted to a GFX 50R is a lot like the Lumix 20mm F1.7 mounted to the Olympus PEN-F, at least in spirit. Read on for one pro photographer's opinion of this 'little' 50mm prime lens.
We've got our hands on a full-production copy of Fujifilm's GF 50mm F3.5 "pancake" prime lens for their medium-format GFX system. As the smallest lens in the lineup, we decided to see how it stacks up as a travel companion on some recent trips.
We're taking a look back through 2019 by focusing on one of our all-time favorite photographic subjects – Belvedere, a rescue pup who joined the DPReview team last fall and graced many of our sample galleries over the past 12 months.
The GF 50mm F3.5 is the closest you'll find to a pancake lens for Fujifilm's GFX medium format system. This 40mm equiv. is dust and weather-sealed, lightweight and most importantly, very sharp.
In our interview with Fujifilm executives we covered everything from the upcoming GFX 100 to plans for APS-C, and why the X100 still occupies such an important position in the company's lineup.
The Fujifilm X-T4 brings image stabilization, faster shooting and a bigger battery to the X-T series. It's not without its shortcomings but we found it to be an excellent stills and video shooter.
With its unusual form factor can the Tourbox aid the editing process? Will its price and variety of tactile controls appeal to photo and video editors who would like to streamline their workflow?
The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.
The DJI Mavic Air 2 is a Goldilocks drone. It's not the biggest or the smallest model out there, but it delivers just the right balance of size and features.
Exposure Software's latest Exposure X5 app is a surprisingly fast, feature-packed and affordable alternative to Adobe's Lightroom – with no subscription required.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.
Video features have become an important factor to many photographers when choosing a new camera. Read on to find out which cameras we think are best for the videophile.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
Definitely a case of 'evolution rather than revolution', the new look is designed to help users recognize icons and logos more quickly in the different environments in which they appear
What does two years of progress look like, for Fujifilm's most video-centric models? Is the X-T4 worth the upgrade from the X-H1, or is now the time to bag yourself a bargain?
Adobe has released a new video series titled In a Lightroom Minute that breaks down tips and tricks for Lightroom CC and Lightroom Mobile in 60 seconds (give or take a few).
The Sony ZV-1 is a modified version of Sony's RX100 series aimed at vloggers and video enthusiasts. Does Sony have a winner? Chris and Jordan vlog their way through an episode to find out.
The live event is over, but the full replay is available until June 6 and they're still accepting donations — 100% of which go to Global Giving's Coronavirus Global Relief Fund and other regional charities.
Nikon's financial results don't fall far from the updated forecast shared earlier this month and highlight just how unsure the entire industry is about the future due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thinking about buying your first film camera? Great news, there's plenty of options out there! Here are 12 things to keep in mind when picking out your perfect analog companion.
The teaser doesn't share much information but based on the visuals provided, it appears to be a mid-range zoom roughly the same size as its 28-75mm F2.8 lens.
In early March, it was reported the ITC ruled in Autel's favor over a long-standing patent battle. DJI, and its legal team, have issued a response declaring victory on their end.
Check out our first sample gallery from the Sony ZV-1, shot by our team at DPReview TV. Their full review of the ZV-1 is coming to a YouTube channel near you soon!
A few sophisticated features were touted with the release of DJI's latest consumer-grade drone, the Mavic Air 2, including the ability to shoot 8K Hyperlapse video. But you may encounter problems trying to watch that footage on your computer.
Ricoh has officially released the HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 ED SDM AW lens for its full-frame DSLRs. This fast, weather-sealed portrait prime will ship in mid-June for $1899.
The new structure pays a percentage of the sale price based on the level the contributor is at—a level that's based on the number of sales made, with that count resetting on the first day of the year.
The Windows program works with nine of Fujifilm's X Series and GFX System medium format cameras and turns the video into a feed that can be used with video conferencing software.
If you're into aerial photography, you've likely heard of From Where I Drone. Dirk Dallas talks to us about what makes an exceptional photo along with his new book, Eyes Over the World.
Sony just announced the ZV-1, a modified version of the RX100 series aimed specifically at vloggers. We take a look at six important features you may have missed from the announcement.
Sony has announced the ZV-1, which it calls a 'content creator' camera. It's essentially the hardware of an RX100 VA redesigned to make vlogging and facing-the-camera shooting easier.
We got our hands on Sony's new Xperia 1 Mark II smartphone which features impressive Eye AF tracking, super-fast burst shooting and a triple-camera array. Check out our initial samples.
The Xperia 1 II will be available to pre-order on June 1 for $1,200 with the first units set to ship out on July 24. If you get in early, Sony will even toss in an added bonus.
When most people think of Casio, the first things that pop into their minds are calculator watches and keyboards. But, as we explore in this article, the company was well ahead of its time creating features that are standard on modern cameras.
Unconventional and unsightly? Very much so. Effective? Most certainly. These six DIY smartphone rigs won't win any design awards, but they get the job done.
Title fight! In one corner we have the new Olympus E-M1 Mark III. In the other is the Panasonic G9 – two years old, but sporting an impressive mid-life firmware update. Find out who wins the battle for Micro Four Thirds supremacy!
Comments