The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The Mirrorless Endgame ...
- Thread starter Knorp
- Start date
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
So far I have not seen a Tilt Adapter for the GFX 100. :facesmack:
That would be an essential accessory for me. :thumbup:
That would be an essential accessory for me. :thumbup:
..from the comparomater at
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
GFX100iso50 vs GFX50Siso50
GFX100iso50 vs Z7iso64
GFX50Siso50 vs Z7iso64
Ps. remember the comparometer only use JPG
thorkil
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
GFX100iso50 vs GFX50Siso50
GFX100iso50 vs Z7iso64
GFX50Siso50 vs Z7iso64
Ps. remember the comparometer only use JPG
thorkil
biglouis
Well-known member
Just some thoughts on the size of mirrorless sensors, viz a viz Thorkil's comparison photos (above)
Shortly after I bought a Panasonic GX8, which I decided I actually liked photographing more with at the time than the Sony A7R, I decided I had to do a side by side test to prove that the A7R with its FF sensor and megapixels difference was superior to the m4rds camera with a 20mpx sensor.
I mean, a 20mpx tiny m43rds sensor couldn't be equivalent, could it?
What I decided at the end was that the main difference was the number of pixels and not the quality of them. At the pixel level up to about iso3200 the individual pixels were equality good or bad as the noise increased with the iso. There was little to choose between the pixels - in fact I would go so far as to say there was no difference.
That kind of made sense because both sensors had a native iso of something like iso200 (maybe the Sony was iso100 but I can't remember). So why would the pixels actually be that much different, if at all? At least, that's what my eyes told me.
On the other hand, the A7R had the ability to crop much further into the image and still have a reasonable file size - that is a significant difference.
Now all my published work is either in book form, say 16x23cms, or up to A4 in magazines and considerably smaller for web or even newspapers (I never have been asked nor would I do product photography which does require something very large).
So, basically cropping is not a big issue to me and I junked the Sony kit and just enjoyed shooting a lot more with my m43rds kit until earlier this year when I changed to the Fuji X-T3 - but for reasons of the AF system and for wildlife photography.
Now, I have to confess I also own a GFX50S. The system is absolutely superb. The IQ is better than the best I ever got out of any camera, including my much loved Leica DRF system. The lenses are sublime, truly amazing. I know at the pixel level it is superior to the Fuji X-T3 - I am very pleased to say (otherwise, what would be the point of owning it?).
But the point is that it is way beyond anything I actually, practically need. Way, way beyond. I've just started work on my 4th book project with a London guide which requires me to do a lot of walking around various part of London shooting buildings and objects to include in the book.
Which camera do I leave home with?
You guessed it: the X-T3. I can get the X-T3, the 10-20/4, 18-55 and 55-200 into a small peak design bag and hop on and off public transport - and walk up to 7-10Kms without feeling as though I am going to keel over. And as explained, the output is more than adequate for the intended book size. The look and feel of the photos is also great, so I don't feel disadvantaged shooting with a camera which is only APS-C.
With the GFX50S I would have to chose the body and a single lens, possibly a second if I was feeling particularly strong that day to take with me to a location. And that means I would have to return to a location several times with different lenses according to the subject. I'm not being lazy - just practical.
I thoroughly recommend the GFX50S and I have no doubt the GFX100 will be fantastic. Much is down to the glass with out-Leica's Leica glass, imho. Especially the 23mm f4 and the 45mm 2.8. But honestly, unless you are doing product or fashion photography - if space/weight is an issue - then APS-C or FF mirrorless is going to give you the same practical results - even if not the same 'visuality' or look as the Fuji MF glass.
Just my two cents
LouisB
Shortly after I bought a Panasonic GX8, which I decided I actually liked photographing more with at the time than the Sony A7R, I decided I had to do a side by side test to prove that the A7R with its FF sensor and megapixels difference was superior to the m4rds camera with a 20mpx sensor.
I mean, a 20mpx tiny m43rds sensor couldn't be equivalent, could it?
What I decided at the end was that the main difference was the number of pixels and not the quality of them. At the pixel level up to about iso3200 the individual pixels were equality good or bad as the noise increased with the iso. There was little to choose between the pixels - in fact I would go so far as to say there was no difference.
That kind of made sense because both sensors had a native iso of something like iso200 (maybe the Sony was iso100 but I can't remember). So why would the pixels actually be that much different, if at all? At least, that's what my eyes told me.
On the other hand, the A7R had the ability to crop much further into the image and still have a reasonable file size - that is a significant difference.
Now all my published work is either in book form, say 16x23cms, or up to A4 in magazines and considerably smaller for web or even newspapers (I never have been asked nor would I do product photography which does require something very large).
So, basically cropping is not a big issue to me and I junked the Sony kit and just enjoyed shooting a lot more with my m43rds kit until earlier this year when I changed to the Fuji X-T3 - but for reasons of the AF system and for wildlife photography.
Now, I have to confess I also own a GFX50S. The system is absolutely superb. The IQ is better than the best I ever got out of any camera, including my much loved Leica DRF system. The lenses are sublime, truly amazing. I know at the pixel level it is superior to the Fuji X-T3 - I am very pleased to say (otherwise, what would be the point of owning it?).
But the point is that it is way beyond anything I actually, practically need. Way, way beyond. I've just started work on my 4th book project with a London guide which requires me to do a lot of walking around various part of London shooting buildings and objects to include in the book.
Which camera do I leave home with?
You guessed it: the X-T3. I can get the X-T3, the 10-20/4, 18-55 and 55-200 into a small peak design bag and hop on and off public transport - and walk up to 7-10Kms without feeling as though I am going to keel over. And as explained, the output is more than adequate for the intended book size. The look and feel of the photos is also great, so I don't feel disadvantaged shooting with a camera which is only APS-C.
With the GFX50S I would have to chose the body and a single lens, possibly a second if I was feeling particularly strong that day to take with me to a location. And that means I would have to return to a location several times with different lenses according to the subject. I'm not being lazy - just practical.
I thoroughly recommend the GFX50S and I have no doubt the GFX100 will be fantastic. Much is down to the glass with out-Leica's Leica glass, imho. Especially the 23mm f4 and the 45mm 2.8. But honestly, unless you are doing product or fashion photography - if space/weight is an issue - then APS-C or FF mirrorless is going to give you the same practical results - even if not the same 'visuality' or look as the Fuji MF glass.
Just my two cents
LouisB
Louis, I totally agree. My interest and decision to own a Nikon mirrorless several years before it came out was purely handling, ease of use, reliability, size and weight, and with Nikon I knew it would be that good solution for me. So you are right, in front of the screen one tend to forget the practical issue, which is so important and grow upon you as a keyfactor once you are getting around in the real world.
The comparometer at 100% tells me that the Z7 aint that bad at all for my use, when it does hold up well against such splendid ones as the 50S. So I'm about to be aware of, that I'm actually rather satisfied for the time being, and for the future. And improvements could better be as simple as perhaps getting a tripod along or investigate in PP.
The comparometer at 100% tells me that the Z7 aint that bad at all for my use, when it does hold up well against such splendid ones as the 50S. So I'm about to be aware of, that I'm actually rather satisfied for the time being, and for the future. And improvements could better be as simple as perhaps getting a tripod along or investigate in PP.
Shashin
Well-known member
The limit to photography is the human visual system. What are the conditions that need to be met where a 100MP system become visually different form a 50MP or 24MP one? More pixels does not mean bigger prints, but simply higher-frequency detail, just as fine grain film has higher-frequency detail than coarse-grain film.
I took kind of the same route as Louis. My first camera was an m4/3 Olympus E-P1. I was amazed at the quality of the prints I was getting from this 12MP camera. My 40MP Pentax 645D gives amazing results--I mostly make 40" prints and have gone larger and 40" prints are a breeze at 40MP. The Pentax is a bit of a beast, and while I have used it handheld, it mostly sits on a tripod (I learnt a lot about using tripods with that camera). After putting together a book with images taken with my Mamiya 6 medium-format film camera, I missed the spontaneity I had with that. I used it for documentary work with ISO 400 film, and while the image quality was great, it was not really competing with digital. Looking at a few cameras, I rather nervously bought an X Pro2 sight unseen after a lot of research. My criteria was if I could get good 40" prints from the images, it would stay. Needless to say, I am really pleased with the work I have been making from that system as well as the freedom in its handling.
We seem to be moving in the seasoning-as-you-go problem. You keep adding a bit more seasoning to taste as you cook. You seem to be able to keep adding a bit more as you cook. Only when you come to serve, do you notice it is too much. While maximization seems to be the ideal, I have been thinking more about optimization. Yes, you can double your energy intake by doubling your food portions, but there is a downside. I have been thinking more about how I can achieve my goals by optimizing my systems. Yes, my Pentax has better image quality than my X Pro2 in absolute terms, but what about practical terms? Is it something a viewer would notice? Since I travel a great deal on foot in my work, how does physical exertion in carrying my equipment impact the final result? I have just added a Fuji XF10 to my bag and it has been a revelation.
I totally get the appeal of this camera. There are even photographers that can take advantage of this (although they will need something bigger than a 42" printer). It is great Fuji is developing this tech. I am looking forward to seeing the works folks will get with this.
I took kind of the same route as Louis. My first camera was an m4/3 Olympus E-P1. I was amazed at the quality of the prints I was getting from this 12MP camera. My 40MP Pentax 645D gives amazing results--I mostly make 40" prints and have gone larger and 40" prints are a breeze at 40MP. The Pentax is a bit of a beast, and while I have used it handheld, it mostly sits on a tripod (I learnt a lot about using tripods with that camera). After putting together a book with images taken with my Mamiya 6 medium-format film camera, I missed the spontaneity I had with that. I used it for documentary work with ISO 400 film, and while the image quality was great, it was not really competing with digital. Looking at a few cameras, I rather nervously bought an X Pro2 sight unseen after a lot of research. My criteria was if I could get good 40" prints from the images, it would stay. Needless to say, I am really pleased with the work I have been making from that system as well as the freedom in its handling.
We seem to be moving in the seasoning-as-you-go problem. You keep adding a bit more seasoning to taste as you cook. You seem to be able to keep adding a bit more as you cook. Only when you come to serve, do you notice it is too much. While maximization seems to be the ideal, I have been thinking more about optimization. Yes, you can double your energy intake by doubling your food portions, but there is a downside. I have been thinking more about how I can achieve my goals by optimizing my systems. Yes, my Pentax has better image quality than my X Pro2 in absolute terms, but what about practical terms? Is it something a viewer would notice? Since I travel a great deal on foot in my work, how does physical exertion in carrying my equipment impact the final result? I have just added a Fuji XF10 to my bag and it has been a revelation.
I totally get the appeal of this camera. There are even photographers that can take advantage of this (although they will need something bigger than a 42" printer). It is great Fuji is developing this tech. I am looking forward to seeing the works folks will get with this.
faberryman
Member
A size comparison of the Sony A7RIII and Fuji GFX100 bodies. Lenses extra. A larger sensor comes at a price.
Shashin
Well-known member
Are you sure the difference is just about sensor size? What if that Sony had a vertical grip for additional batteries?
faberryman
Member
You can add a vertical grip for the Sony if you want one. You can't take the vertical grip off the Fuji.
It always does.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
For general photography the Sony is likely more capable but with that being said it won’t match the Fuji in pure IQ. The Sony will also likely have better battery life. If using the absolute best Sony lenses I’d assume that it would be a push in quality, price, and size.
So everything comes down to the subjective needs of the end user. I wouldn’t mind either or both if money were no object. If I wanted to distinguish myself further I’d choose the medium format option. If focus and tracking were more important I’d choose a Sony body. Simple as that for me. Both are capable and either can probably do the job in the hands of a reasonably skilled end user... they’re both more specialized towards certain types of jobs though.
Last edited:
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
It appears the FUJIFILMEVF-TL1 EVF Tilt Adapter Should do the trick. But can it support the increased resolution of the GFX 100 EVF? Time will tell ... . :facesmack:
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Tre thanks, I agree. I like using both, Fuji mMF and Sony FE. :thumbs:
Knorp
Well-known member
Knorp
Well-known member
I'm rarely printing anything at all so I can't comment or rather shouldn't comment, but there's truth in your words.
The 42MP from my A7r2 and 51MP from my 50s are already over the top and exceeding by far my capabilities.
In fact I shouldn't bother with any advanced photography equipment and use my smart phone instead ... :facesmack:
Still, I'm hoping Fuji will further develop and improve their 50's range.
Frankly, for me the GFX100 is overkill and way beyond my financial means.
But I'm open for any future serious cashback action or Xmas deal ... :grin:
I have the tilt adapter but have found that using my Peak loupe and the LCD screen is as good an option without the added weight and bulk. That combination works best when the EVF is completely removed which creates some other issues when shooting in direct bright light.
Victor
Victor
Not owning the 50S I am confused about why the tilt adapter might not support 100MP images considering one would be using the new EVF that comes with the 100MP camera. Doesn't the tilt adapter simply connect the EVF with camera body while allowing tilt? Does it have additional functions?
Shashin
Well-known member
biglouis
Well-known member
I love the tilt adapter on the 50S. It is probably my favourite feature after the IQ of the camera.
It brings me back to my favourite way of holding a camera, which is at or near waist level.
You can also use it in portrait mode as well as landscape which is a useful feature.
When I shoot with my X-T3, I really miss the tilt/swivel and end up using the screen but unfortunately in bright sunlight it is not optimal.
LouisB
It brings me back to my favourite way of holding a camera, which is at or near waist level.
You can also use it in portrait mode as well as landscape which is a useful feature.
When I shoot with my X-T3, I really miss the tilt/swivel and end up using the screen but unfortunately in bright sunlight it is not optimal.
LouisB