Fujifilm GFX100 II Teaser Video

[Mexecutioner]

I believe Sony A1 is also 2048 x 1536 as well

 

[diggles]

Interesting as I found frame averaging for landscape work, very limited due to motion artifacts, i.e. any wind blowing and the image pretty much worthless (tree leaves, cars moving)
However with DE, I can almost always work with wind and not get artifacts on the leaves. But last fall I discovered that DE is very tricky to use around water. If you have current moving water depending on the speed of the water, you can get some very bad artifacts. I was shooting a sunset above a river that had slight wind blowing on the water, creating very faint ripples. The ripples were reproduced in certain parts of the image with artifacts that were very difficult to remove. The trees which were along the river bank were fine and they had the same wind effecting them. I have found that frame averaging on water can produce a much smoother look to the water and often use it along with a straight frame and combine them later on. With DE I usually only use it with shutter speeds of 1/30 or higher as if I need a slower speed usually the IQ4 can take a very clean image without need for DE. Both features are excellent tools and I will always use DE in the field but follow the DE with a straight frame.

Bigger issues for me are weight/mass of the IQ4 system and attempting to carry it in the field. Just getting to where I don't want to have that much on my back anymore.

Paul

Hmm.. I think the reason I am not happy with the DE is that I'm normally using it with longish exposures and the combined file looks a bit posterized in the small details. I'm not sure that I have used it with shorter times like 1/30 or higher. I am interested in trying it though because it does seem like there should be an improvement. When I'm using frame averaging I expect the the foliage to move so it doesn't bother me and with the extended exposure times the blur looks more natural to me. I agree 100% that the IQ4 is very capable of taking a very clean image without DE. My main struggle with the files is not getting more detail out of the shadows, but when to stop opening the shadows up.

 

[hcubell]

For the type of photography that I do, static subjects, mostly landscapes, there is nothing in the overall series of changes in the GFX 100II body or the new lenses that I find compelling compared to what is already available in the X2D (or the GFX 100S for that matter). They do nothing to improve one's vision or compositional skills.
In theory, a series of TS lenses for the X2D would be attractive, particularly for product and architectural photography. The reality is quite different for me. The new Fuji TS lenses are manual focus only and are VERY heavy. The GFX 30mm TS lens weighs 3 pounds. The 30mm XCD lens weighs 1.2 pounds. Moreover, I believe that you can't do automated focus stacking with a manual focus lens like the GFX TS lenses. There are many scenes where tilt does not "work" as effectively as focus stacking.

 

[hcubell]

Far more than the improved AF speed in the GFX 100II and the other changes, I would like to see Hasselblad incorporate into the X2D body a sensor protection shutter like the Nikon Z9 uses. I just spent 10 days in Iceland shooting in the Highlands with driving rain and 30-40 mph winds. It was impossible as a practical matter to change lenses, so my XCD 35-75 zoom was used almost exclusively. Fortunately, it's an exceptional lens and very versatile. But, still.

 

[rdeloe]

For the type of photography that I do, static subjects, mostly landscapes, there is nothing in the overall series of changes in the GFX 100II body or the new lenses that I find compelling compared to what is already available in the X2D (or the GFX 100S for that matter). They do nothing to improve one's vision or compositional skills.
In theory, a series of TS lenses for the X2D would be attractive, particularly for product and architectural photography. The reality is quite different for me. The new Fuji TS lenses are manual focus only and are VERY heavy. The GFX 30mm TS lens weighs 3 pounds. The 30mm XCD lens weighs 1.2 pounds. Moreover, I believe that you can't do automated focus stacking with a manual focus lens like the GFX TS lenses. There are many scenes where tilt does not "work" as effectively as focus stacking.

That 30mm tilt-shift is a big and heavy lens. It's not something I'm interested in, but for architectural photographers, I think this lens is going to be a hit.

If a GFX user does want a light 30mm lens, the previous 30mm (non-tilt-shift) only weighs 1.12 lb / 510 g

 

[Steve Hendrix]

That 30mm tilt-shift is a big and heavy lens. It's not something I'm interested in, but for architectural photographers, I think this lens is going to be a hit.

If a GFX user does want a light 30mm lens, the previous 30mm (non-tilt-shift) only weighs 1.12 lb / 510 g

Right now, we're running at least 2:1 GF 30mm TS vs GFX II body sales (as I expected). The 30 TS solves an obvious big problem with a ready market.

I'm also a fan of ther 30mm standard prime, so small and light, and excellent optically.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[rdeloe]

Right now, we're running at least 2:1 GF 30mm TS vs GFX II body sales (as I expected). The 30 TS solves an obvious big problem with a ready market.

I'm also a fan of ther 30mm standard prime, so small and light, and excellent optically.


Steve Hendrix/CI

I'm not surprised. Honestly Steve, if I shot architectural photography and was being paid to do it, you would have had my order for that lens already. There is no substitute for GFX photographers. I say that as an enthusiastic user of a Pentax-A 645 35/3.5 on my F-Universalis. The Fuji GF 30mm TS is next level in comparison.

Imagine a 21mm, 30mm and 45mm native TS lens lineup for GFX, all providing 15mm of good quality shift...

 

[diggles]

Imagine a 21mm, 30mm and 45mm native TS lens lineup for GFX, all providing 15mm of good quality shift...

I think you'd see a lot of photographers doing this!

 

[diggles]

I'm also a fan of ther 30mm standard prime, so small and light, and excellent optically.

100%

 

[marc aurel]

I'm not surprised. Honestly Steve, if I shot architectural photography and was being paid to do it, you would have had my order for that lens already. There is no substitute for GFX photographers. I say that as an enthusiastic user of a Pentax-A 645 35/3.5 on my F-Universalis. The Fuji GF 30mm TS is next level in comparison.

Imagine a 21mm, 30mm and 45mm native TS lens lineup for GFX, all providing 15mm of good quality shift...

Yes, give us more of those, Fuji. 21mm and 45mm TS. I'll buy them in a heartbeat.

 

[Alan]

Yes, give us more of those, Fuji. 21mm and 45mm TS. I'll buy them in a heartbeat.

Yep - honestly that's the only "problem" I see with the new T/S lenses. I still need a mixed system for the other necessary focal lengths. In that way, it almost pushes me closer to going full IQ4 / Tech Cam / Rodenstock. (Or more hopefully, a CFV 100 + HR-S lenses.)

 

[marc aurel]

Yep - honestly that's the only "problem" I see with the new T/S lenses. I still need a mixed system for the other necessary focal lengths. In that way, it almost pushes me closer to going full IQ4 / Tech Cam / Rodenstock. (Or more hopefully, a CFV 100 + HR-S lenses.)

For me the mixed system is OK. Sure, it would be nicer to have just native lenses. But as I repeatedly said on this forum ;-) the TS-E 50mm and TS-E 90mm are excellent optically and the images with those do hardly need any post processing. They are distortion free and of excellent sharpness across the frame. No relevant vignetting (except of the 50 with full shift over the lang edge). Still I sometimes would want a 45mm instead of a 50mm. That slightly wider focal length would be better - for my photographic style. Hopefully Fuji chooses 45mm.

And of course for the rare cases where I need wider than 30mm, this is the "problematic" focal length. The Nikon PC-E 19mm is much better than the wide Canon TS-Es optically, but not on the level of the new Fujis. And it has tons of distortion which is a lot of post processing work. And on a 44x33mm sensor 19mm is just too wide,
I would love to have a Fuji lens around 21mm without distortion and sharp as the other GF lenses.

Alan, if you consider the IQ4 / Tech Cam / Rodenstock way: it would be so interesting to compare side by side. Such an amazing system regarding image quality. But for me it is not free of compromises too. On the wide side the shifts that e.g. the Digaron-W 32mm can provide seem less than what the GF 30mm TS can (relative to image height of the sensor). The ultrawide Digaron-S 23mm shifts only a few millimetres. For me the compromise of a "mixed" system is smaller than the compromises that the IQ4 has – of course only for my personal approach, I would not want to speak for others who love this system and achieve stellar results with is,

 

[dchew]

On the wide side the shifts that e.g. the Digaron-W 32mm can provide seem less than what the GF 30mm TS can (relative to image height of the sensor).

I've never understood this "relative to image height" or similar statements. Millimeters of shift can be misleading when discussing different formats. If I set up a camera at a specific point in front of a building to get the perspective I want, then the lens with the largest angle of view will have the most available projection regardless of what camera or sensor I'm using. If the focal lengths are the same, then the lens with the largest useable image circle will have more available movement. The 32hr has a 90mm image circle, while the GF 30mm is 81mm (as near as we can tell from the built-in 15mm shift limit). Note the 32hr is really 33.06mm focal length, so the GF may actually have more available movement. I suspect they are pretty close, but I need @MGrayson to do that math for me.

Now, about that price...

Dave

 

[marc aurel]

I've never understood this "relative to image height" or similar statements. Millimeters of shift can be misleading when discussing different formats. If I set up a camera at a specific point in front of a building to get the perspective I want, then the lens with the largest angle of view will have the most available projection regardless of what camera or sensor I'm using. If the focal lengths are the same, then the lens with the largest useable image circle will have more available movement. The 32hr has a 90mm image circle, while the GF 30mm is 81mm (as near as we can tell from the built-in 15mm shift limit). Note the 32hr is really 33.06mm focal length, so the GF may actually have more available movement. I suspect they are pretty close, but I need @MGrayson to do that math for me.

Now, about that price...

Dave

Sensor diagonal of the 44 x 33 mm sensor is 55mm. Plus 2 x 15mm shift diagonally would make 85mm. But that's still a bit less than the 90mm of the digaron 32.
And yes, that price of the GF lens is a bit lower...

 

[diggles]

For me the mixed system is OK. Sure, it would be nicer to have just native lenses. But as I repeatedly said on this forum ;-) the TS-E 50mm and TS-E 90mm are excellent optically and the images with those do hardly need any post processing. They are distortion free and of excellent sharpness across the frame. No relevant vignetting (except of the 50 with full shift over the lang edge). Still I sometimes would want a 45mm instead of a 50mm. That slightly wider focal length would be better - for my photographic style. Hopefully Fuji chooses 45mm.

And of course for the rare cases where I need wider than 30mm, this is the "problematic" focal length. The Nikon PC-E 19mm is much better than the wide Canon TS-Es optically, but not on the level of the new Fujis. And it has tons of distortion which is a lot of post processing work. And on a 44x33mm sensor 19mm is just too wide,
I would love to have a Fuji lens around 21mm without distortion and sharp as the other GF lenses.

Alan, if you consider the IQ4 / Tech Cam / Rodenstock way: it would be so interesting to compare side by side. Such an amazing system regarding image quality. But for me it is not free of compromises too. On the wide side the shifts that e.g. the Digaron-W 32mm can provide seem less than what the GF 30mm TS can (relative to image height of the sensor). The ultrawide Digaron-S 23mm shifts only a few millimetres. For me the compromise of a "mixed" system is smaller than the compromises that the IQ4 has – of course only for my personal approach, I would not want to speak for others who love this system and achieve stellar results with is,

Another consideration for architectural photography, is do you use strobes to light interiors? When lighting interiors it is common to make multiple photographs and light each one differently so they can be combined in post. Basically, take a shot then move the light, take another shot and move the light again, etc.

The Fuji has a mechanical shutter that can be triggered at a distance with a radio slave so you don't have to go back to the camera between each shot. Unless you are using XT lenses or have an assistant to move the lights in between shots for you this is not an option with the IQ.

In my opinion Fuji has stepped it up with the release of the TS lenses and the new 100 ii. They are providing photographers with a professional system that is more flexible than anything else out there in the medium format category. And they are not compromising quality for flexibility. Like @Dave Gallagher said in his article, "Thank you Fujifilm!"

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The problem is a bit that P1 offers this too with their X-shutter lenses (strobes), but the price differential is immense to a point where it becomes awkward to compare price to performance, almost. But I guess that was never the game with P1 ...

 

[MGrayson]

I've never understood this "relative to image height" or similar statements. Millimeters of shift can be misleading when discussing different formats. If I set up a camera at a specific point in front of a building to get the perspective I want, then the lens with the largest angle of view will have the most available projection regardless of what camera or sensor I'm using. If the focal lengths are the same, then the lens with the largest useable image circle will have more available movement. The 32hr has a 90mm image circle, while the GF 30mm is 81mm (as near as we can tell from the built-in 15mm shift limit). Note the 32hr is really 33.06mm focal length, so the GF may actually have more available movement. I suspect they are pretty close, but I need @MGrayson to do that math for me.

Now, about that price...

Dave

Dave,

Wait, we're comparing different size sensors with different pixel pitches and different focal length lenses with different image circles and shift amounts? Math is NOT the problem here. I'd say we've moved on past Epistemology all the way to Theology. And then there's the price....

(I use the XCD 21mm and keystone correct. But then, no one is paying me to do a good job.)

Matt

 

[nameBrandon]

This is what blows my mind.. How does the same company that did the most bland and monotonous live stream release of the GFX 100 II, turn around and then release this brilliant piece of awesome.

It's like Fujifilm has bipolar marketing disorder. Maybe just Fuji Japan vs USA at play here..

 

[buildbot]

This is what blows my mind.. How does the same company that did the most bland and monotonous live stream release of the GFX 100 II, turn around and then release this brilliant piece of awesome.

Live vs. recorded? Live means _no_ mistakes can be removed, recorded of course they could tweak it for months if they want.

Apple switched from Live to pre-recorded even.

 

[dchew]

Dave,

Wait, we're comparing different size sensors with different pixel pitches and different focal length lenses with different image circles and shift amounts? Math is NOT the problem here. I'd say we've moved on past Epistemology all the way to Theology. And then there's the price....

(I use the XCD 21mm and keystone correct. But then, no one is paying me to do a good job.)

Matt

No no, Matt. Same pixel pitch. I’m not crazy!

Dave