• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Fuji GFX 50 S medium format


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
105 replies to this topic

#41 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2016 - 01:45 PM

Hmmm... That seems a bit problematic, with a sensor without global electronic shutter?

I wonder if adapted lenses with shutter can have their shutter activated by this camera.



#42 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 02:25 PM

I posted a link on the previous page where they talk about leaf shutter lenses, maybe even possible adapters for Hasselblad's H series lenses. Btw, there is also an adapter for using V series lenses on H series bodies which activates and cocks the shutter when needed.

 

 

Edit:

 

This link  says otherwise

 

 

 

 

  • GFX is equipped to support leaf shutter lenses. Fuji has no current plans to release leaf shutter lenses or adapters, but will release the specs to support other manufacturers to do so.


#43 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2016 - 03:22 PM

So it has a focal plane shutter, according to that video. That makes sense.



#44 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:23 PM

Some pretty rad stuff - I kinda feel this, even though in reality the medium format seems like Greek to me. :D



#45 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:27 PM

I am not yet getting the appeal of the Fuji and Hasselblad MF, seeing the smaller aperture lenses.



#46 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2016 - 06:39 PM

110/2.0 is equivalent in terms of DoF to 88/1.6 ( × 0.8 crop) - you're more dedicated to this computing than I am...

 

I see just a nice portrait lens and no much better offerings around at FF. And a 25/2.0 for a little bigger than FF is not impossible, I think- but I'm not hoping for it.

 

Fuji is very good at wide open lenses, I already have f/1.2 and f/1.4 for dark moments; although in APS-C, but it's no big difference to FF (at least on DSLR with the usual AF troubles.

 

Maybe I try some side by side comparisons. I'm just afraid, the Nikkor 85/1.4 G will not hold well against it's Fuji colleague.  :D



#47 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:11 PM

That is just it, the fastest lens is a f1.6 FF equivalent. In my opinion, the only real reason for FF over other smaller formats is a possible more shallow DOF. So, that then also goes for MF, the only real reason would then be possible more shallow DOF. Equivalence and all.

 

So I do not see the attractiveness of MF here, a FF DSLR with a Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art, Canon 85mm f1.2 L or Tamron 85mm f1.8 VC is much more affordable and gives more DOF options.

Then there are the various 50mm f1.2/1/4 options for 135 format, the 105mm f1.4 Nikkor, the 135mm f1.8/2 options, 200mm f2's, and even the 20mm f1.4 from Sigma. 

 

And for those who are not shallow DOF adepts, APS-C and MFT are just fine.

 

For those who need single shot high resolution, FF has caught up to these 50mp MF sensors, with Canon's 50mp and Sony's 42mp sensors.

 

That is why I don't totally get the excitement, other than it being cool gear all on its own.



#48 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:59 PM

DOF is definitely not the main reason. A photographer like Ming Thein for instance, choses MF over FF because of the pixel quality and resolution he gets from MF. Higher DR, better tonal response, etc. and also higher resolution. Although a Canon 5DS might have a 50MP sensor, few (if any?) lenses can resolve it, especially across the frame.

The 50MP MF Fuji will very likely have lenses taking advantage of the body's resolution. In terms of resolution the Canon and Fuji won't be even close.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#49 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:10 PM

DOF is definitely not the main reason. A photographer like Ming Thein for instance, choses MF over FF because of the pixel quality and resolution he gets from MF. Higher DR, better tonal response, etc. and also higher resolution. Although a Canon 5DS might have a 50MP sensor, few (if any?) lenses can resolve it, especially across the frame.

The 50MP MF Fuji will very likely have lenses taking advantage of the body's resolution. In terms of resolution the Canon and Fuji won't be even close.

The test images on dpreview already show that the 5DSR does fine resolution wise, compared to the Pentax for instance.



#50 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 327 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:27 PM

People claim better "pixel quality", which means better tonality, color transitions and such. I have no idea though, I haven't shot with a MF digital, ever. I do know however, with the right lens system, you can't really tell the difference between APS-C and FF if the both sensors are more or less from the same era, even in pixel level. Most of the difference people think comes from larger pixels might as well be coming from better A/D converters, 16 bit pipeline etc.



#51 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:09 PM

The test images on dpreview already show that the 5DSR does fine resolution wise, compared to the Pentax for instance.

Actually, the Canon looks better in this test scene at low ISO. To me the Pentax also suffers from a lens which appears to be weaker than the Canon lens. At first. At second, I saw in the top right corner aberrations from Pentax and none from canon, but the smaller structures were finer at the Pentax. In front of the Canon was a "normal" 85/1.8 @f/5.6, whereas the Pentax had a 90/2.8 macro lens mounted @f/8

 

At ISO 3200 things look different, however.

 

The test scene is only resolutionwise a challenge for the cameras - no comparison of real life pictures. No challenge of dynamic range or colordepth. Okay, with lower DR one can take two shots, if possible. Just not on a windy day or with moving persons. And also the visual depth and more the gradient of the bokeh is not visible in the test scene. When I moved from 135 to 120 film and sometimes to even larger format I realized it was much easier to compose better pictures, have a wider range of greyscales and so on - but mostly because I didn't fiddle around with low ASA, I used in both HP5 plus, so there was an easy bonus for MF. But even when I used low ASA, the density of MF was stronger - and I think, this is what makes MF surviving these days .

 

Elegance, weight and simplicty of the GFX 50 are tempting. Question is how good Fuji can prepare the sensor with the microlenses to catch up with a 2.6 × shorter flange distance?



#52 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:07 AM

Not sure why they do not compare it to the size of a Sony A7r II, though.

Available here



#53 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 September 2016 - 10:36 AM

Available here

Thanks, that comparison makes a lot more sense!

 

The guy in the video talks a lot of rubbish though: Fuji designed sensor (it is a Sony designed sensor), Focal plane shutter for lower shutter shock... So what kind of shutter provides more shutter shock? 1.7x bigger sensor than FF? I don't think so.



#54 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 September 2016 - 11:30 AM

I haven't watched it.

 

Fuji changed the design of the microlenses to be able to reduce the usual flange distance down to 40%. So, a bit of Fuji brain is in, but it's a Bayer pattern made by Sony.

 

shutter shock and mirror slap are for some people the same... but anyway, it has also a full electronic shutter. The shutter makes the lenses cheaper per se than the Hasselblad ones, but when Hasselblad tells that within ten days the got orders they were expecting to get for one year, it certainly is a need and demand. Is it then ProSumer or PoshSumer?  :lol:

 

1.7× bigger is correct:

24×36 = 864 mm

33×44 = 1452 mm

 

1452 ÷ 864 = 1.68

 

Was the battery empty in your equivanlenculator?  B)  :D



#55 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,580 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 September 2016 - 11:35 AM

I haven't watched it.

 

Fuji changed the design of the microlenses to be able to reduce the usual flange distance down to 40%. So, a bit of Fuji brain is in, but it's a Bayer pattern made by Sony.

 

shutter shock and mirror slap are for some people the same... but anyway, it has also a full electronic shutter. The shutter makes the lenses cheaper per se than the Hasselblad ones, but when Hasselblad tells that within ten days the got orders they were expecting to get for one year, it certainly is a need and demand. Is it then ProSumer or PoshSumer?  :lol:

 

1.7× bigger is correct:

24×36 = 864 mm

33×44 = 1452 mm

 

1452 ÷ 864 = 1.68

 

Was the battery empty in your equivanlenculator?  B)  :D

Usually we only count the difference in diagonal (thats why we call MFT 2x crop and Fuji APS-C 1.5x crop).  ^_^

But thanks for the calculus,



#56 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:38 PM

Well it is a sony sensor modified by fuji. Supposedly (if you believe fuji pr) it will perform 'better' than hass version (I think better refers to dr).

 

Thanks, that comparison makes a lot more sense!

 

The guy in the video talks a lot of rubbish though: Fuji designed sensor (it is a Sony designed sensor), Focal plane shutter for lower shutter shock... So what kind of shutter provides more shutter shock? 1.7x bigger sensor than FF? I don't think so.



#57 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,072 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:41 PM

Here's a size comparo of different sensor sizes and yes there are several medium formal sensor sizes 

 

Fuji-GFX-50S-medium-format-sensor-size-c


  • southerncross likes this

#58 southerncross

southerncross

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 25 September 2016 - 04:41 PM

The closer to a squere the aspect ratio gets the easier it is to compose, for me, at least. The 4:3 aspect ratio makes more sense actually for portrait orientation than 3:2. So for studio work "43.8 × 32.9 mm" can be a lot more usefull than a equivalent  portion of a FF sensor of 32x24mm for a 4:3 aspect ratio (and a whole stop of difference). For landscape orientation some may prefer wider aspect ratios like 16:9 the difference it will be in favor of FF sensors from a buck for bang perspective.

 

If someone goes into a total cost of ownership scenarios the results may be suprising, but the Fuji GFX (or Pentax 645Z) seems more sensible to me than Zeiss manual focus uber-lenses for Canon and Nikon FF systems, which are close in price and perfomance. 


  • JoJu likes this

#59 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,321 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 September 2016 - 11:19 PM

So we can conclude - "Full format" is dead. 

APS-C is for amateurs, MF for professionals. That is the new order of things - just as it was always meant to be.

Just kidding (but I enjoyed it) ... although honestly it makes sense. Who needs full format for sports for instance ? Sports photos end on websites or in tabloids - virtually no need for 30+mp anyway. Wildlife ? What's the effective resolution after air diffusion ? Certainly not 50mp on FF. Portraits and studio ? Better with MF. 

Regarding the high entry price tag of a A7R II/ S II, D5, 5DsR, 1D xII in conjunction with hefty price hikes for their pro lenses, they are out of reach for most non-pros anyway now and many (true) pros will not scream about the price tag of the GFX. If pro DSLRs are dead on the mid-term anyway, why go Sony if you can have a GFX now?

 

It would be so funny if it ended like that ...  :D


  • thxbb12 and Rover like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#60 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 26 September 2016 - 01:36 AM

So far, hand-held and non tethered MF bodies had to rely to indirect AF as well, it was just a better situation because the lenses are less fast. Faster lenses and altogether smaller parts result in tighter tolerances which not every manufacturer is up to, apparently.

 

It's a bit sad to see the FF era going to a possible end once one "MF" sensor (which will remain a FF-H or FF plus to me, because MF to me is more than just 80% more surface than FF) gets popular and comparatively affordable. But for a while the FF machines will remain as they are versatile enough for the people owning one. That was a reason for 135 film and is remaining for FF as well, as long as mirrors are connected to the prejudice of higher quality.

 

Not so quick with calling it "dead", please.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de