k-hawinkler
Well-known member
+1 :thumbup:
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
What are people’s thoughts on the possibility of Fuji releasing GFX 50R/S Mk II’s, with 50MP sensors, but upgraded specs to include many of the features (IBIS, improved EVF, 4K video, PDAF, etc) found in the 100.
It makes sense to me that they strengthen their hand in the $5-6k range.
It makes sense to me that they strengthen their hand in the $5-6k range.
I was not aware that a 50MP 33x44 sensor was available with PDAF, not to mention BSI.
Last edited:
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I think the larger questions is if Sony is still producing 51mp sensors. I’d love to see this because I think 100mp is a bit larger than I want right now.
Forgive me if I wasn’t clear.
I didn’t intend to imply the Mk II’s would use the same sensors as the original 50S/R.
It would just surprise me if Fuji were to abandon the $5k MF price point.
There’s a market there for MF at $5k - this they have proved in abundance with the success of their original cameras. It makes perfect sense, to me, to serve that market with improved offerings.
Kind regards,
Gerald.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Lou, that is not in the 50S. :facesmack:
Well H-K then for now IMHO the $5k price point cannot hold if a new sensor is forthcoming.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
i believe if Sony made an updated version of the sensor in the 50S with the improvements of the 100 I’d be allnover it I think. PDAF and IBIS aren’t a small improvement... neither are 16-bit color or 4K video.
Knorp
Well-known member
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I don’t know when it became a thing to underexposed by 4+ stops, try to recover, and then complain about performance but I hope it stops soon. The advantages of having PDAF and actually exposing close to accurately far outweigh the potential negatives of random occasional banding. Worst case make it a B&W shot... problem solved.
I believe once processors can catch up to the data being processed then CDAF systems like DFD will have an advantage... or at least won’t be at a disadvantage but we aren’t there yet to be honest. Not a big deal in single point AF-S modes but it can be if/when you want to quickly track something in action and/or video. It’s pretty evident when side by side with a camera that has PDAF with one that does not.
faberryman
Member
People have to find something to worry about.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
Yeah, I guess so. It's ridiculous to some extent but if you go on Facebook photo groups it's become one of the first tests that people perform to "show dynamic range" when really that has more to do with how much more advanced software algorithm processes have become in retaining details.
Well looks like I'll be holding off on my "holy grail" purchases a bit longer until the right camera comes along. The irony is that my newest camera is now over 4 years old and nothing has pushed me far enough in advancements for me to add it. Considered the A9 more than a few times, considered Fuji and Panasonic systems... still sitting on what I own and making it work for me.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Unfortunately, this is a consequence of the ridiculously high technical quality of images produced by current cameras. It was easier with film; problems were real. With digital, they have to be invented.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
I am really getting tired of the complaints about banding in underexposed images. The idiots doing this or testing this should not call themselves photographers anymore! Period! And even better stop posting their B...S... on youtube and other social media! I am really done with these useless complaints!
On the topic itself, in normal operation with normal over and under exposure there is NO problem at all and I prefer PDAF always above CDAF. I do hope camera manufacturers bring mostly PDAF solutions in the future. The issues with CDAF in all AF modes are still very prominent in also the latest cameras from Panasonic and will (can) not go away, even with most advanced firmware.
On the topic itself, in normal operation with normal over and under exposure there is NO problem at all and I prefer PDAF always above CDAF. I do hope camera manufacturers bring mostly PDAF solutions in the future. The issues with CDAF in all AF modes are still very prominent in also the latest cameras from Panasonic and will (can) not go away, even with most advanced firmware.
iiiNelson
Well-known member
I actually see this from websites too. The irony is that most YouTube reviews that I've seen (even from people like the Northrup's) point out that the banding is highly unlikely to be an issue in standard usage. Now if there are issues where it can appear in normal usage then that's one thing but since everyone is a "tester" not they feel obliged to create this content frankly because some people request it... and a part of me gets wanting to know "the left and right limits" of the sensor performance. There are times where I've had to recover images from a stop or two within frequently changing lighting conditions of like say a concert or wedding reception... but those are more the exceptions. If I were branding myself to be a videographer, natural light shooter, or studio shooter... rarely does any of that matter in a controlled lighting situation.
So regarding CDAF/DFD... I think it'll eventually get there but we are probably 2-5 years away from it not having any real compromises compared to PDAF. Processors just need to get better in speed and reaction. The other half of that is how much better that the Sony cameras, Blackmagic Cameras, Canon/Nikon, Fuji, etc. will get in that same time period. Sony is rumored to have an A9II in the works Nikon is rumored to be working on a "mirrorless D5" for the Olympics and Canon is rumored to be doing the same.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
This is exactly what I mean - if you are doing right exposure with "normal" over or under exposure you should be fine - even with the most mediocre PDAF integrations on todays's sensors.
WRT PDAF vs. CDAF - I think there will be always the gap even if systems improve - but finally both will get to a perfection where differences become so small that it is almost negelctable in daily usage. And maybe yes, we are just 2 - 4 years away from that point in time.
I am looking very interested towards the A9II and the Nikon Z(D5) coming out later this year or next year - definitely before the Olympics in 2020. I hope Nikon will catch up with Sony WRT AF and also native lens selection. I am VERY interested in the Nikon Z system as it seems more and more to become what I want/need/ask for and that could finish my search for the perfect camera for me. It definitely is not APSC and definitely is not MFD - but rather FF.
pegelli
Well-known member
Here's an example of where sinificantly lifting the shadows was needed.
We had a beautiful evening here the other day and the moon just rose beautifully inbetween the trees and our neighbours house.
I exposed for the moon and at first blush the entire image, except for the moon, was pitch black.
However with +3.5 EV, +100 shadows and a significant lift of the lower part of the curve i reproduced how I experienced the scene.
So there are practical circumstances that exposure protecting the highlights gives significantly underexposed shadows.
Two remarks:
-1- The shadows show mild banding and noise, but I really don't care, it's not the greatest shot anyway and it preserves the memory I had from this beautiful evening in a very acceptable manner
-2- If I wanted a technical better foreground I should have gotten out my tripod and made two exposures (one for the moon, the other for the sky and foreground) and blended them into one picture later. But I was too busy enjoying the beautiful moonrise that I didn't care to do that. Sometimes I find it better to take it all in rather than miss the scene because I'm bogged down in chasing a better technical end-result.
So my bottom line point is that having some data on banding and noise when lifting the shadows can be useful to know, ETTR of very high DR scenes can give very underexposed shadows, but for me it's not an issue to choose between camera A and B.
We had a beautiful evening here the other day and the moon just rose beautifully inbetween the trees and our neighbours house.
I exposed for the moon and at first blush the entire image, except for the moon, was pitch black.
However with +3.5 EV, +100 shadows and a significant lift of the lower part of the curve i reproduced how I experienced the scene.
So there are practical circumstances that exposure protecting the highlights gives significantly underexposed shadows.
Two remarks:
-1- The shadows show mild banding and noise, but I really don't care, it's not the greatest shot anyway and it preserves the memory I had from this beautiful evening in a very acceptable manner
-2- If I wanted a technical better foreground I should have gotten out my tripod and made two exposures (one for the moon, the other for the sky and foreground) and blended them into one picture later. But I was too busy enjoying the beautiful moonrise that I didn't care to do that. Sometimes I find it better to take it all in rather than miss the scene because I'm bogged down in chasing a better technical end-result.
So my bottom line point is that having some data on banding and noise when lifting the shadows can be useful to know, ETTR of very high DR scenes can give very underexposed shadows, but for me it's not an issue to choose between camera A and B.