44x33 versus 54x40

[bythewei]

Need advice from the wise people here. I'm put in a unique situation where I can choose between a GFX100 and a Credo/IQ 60 back.

Now, I shoot 90% of the time in a studio. If you consider all other things being equal, does shooting on a 54x40 sensor bring any optical advantages over the 44x33mm sensor?

Other considerations I have:
1. 60MP is adequate for the things I print. 100MP is somewhat overkill.
2. Focus is not a problem, since my subjects are humans and not moving much
3. Leaf shutter is helpful but I seldom shoot outdoors
4. Tether is important, thankfully I still can tether a firewire to thunderbolt
5. Both are 16-bit
6. GFX cost more than the Credo/IQ 60 (strange but true)
7. Spray and pray is not my style. I shoot slow.

 

[docholliday]

If you are shooting nothing but studio lighting, then hands down, the IQ on an actual optical finder camera is the way to go. The leaf shutter is useful in studio to remove modeling lights or other "distracting" studio light sources without having to turn them off or dim them on set.

With that said, the Credo is older and you may not be able to tether it successfully using new software. It depends on the camera. It doesn't have liveview, but I never use LV in studio but once or twice a year. The screen is old and sucks, but again, if tethered, that's moot since you have a "real" screen to view on.

The CCD does do better with color in studio at base ISO than CMOS with less work and the larger pixel sizing is also an advantage to detail capture. You're at almost double the pixel size. Also remember that larger files means more storage and processing is needed. For hobby stuff, that's fine as you won't amass tons of files, but if you're shooting jobs/production, you may end up with tons of outtakes and require extra storage for them.

I'd personally take an optical viewfinder over any mirrorless in studio. It's just more natural to me. Obviously, the larger sensor makes wides more useful, but in studio, you don't shoot that wide anyways. That of course, depends on the camera body platform you plan to shoot it on.

For the price of the Credo, if you can make it work with your tether setup, you'd be money ahead to spend on things like studio lighting, grip gear, etc.

 

[Abstraction]

Need advice from the wise people here. I'm put in a unique situation where I can choose between a GFX100 and a Credo/IQ 60 back.

Now, I shoot 90% of the time in a studio. If you consider all other things being equal, does shooting on a 54x40 sensor bring any optical advantages over the 44x33mm sensor?

Other considerations I have:
1. 60MP is adequate for the things I print. 100MP is somewhat overkill.
2. Focus is not a problem, since my subjects are humans and not moving much
3. Leaf shutter is helpful but I seldom shoot outdoors
4. Tether is important, thankfully I still can tether a firewire to thunderbolt
5. Both are 16-bit
6. GFX cost more than the Credo/IQ 60 (strange but true)
7. Spray and pray is not my style. I shoot slow.

The Credo 60 is a very old tech in terms of sensors, so its size won't compensate for the differences in technologies.

The GFX 100 uses the newest, BSI sensor and it is a modern camera in all respects with great image quality.

The thing is that if you don't need 100mp, you most likely don't need a large sensor camera and you would be really well served by modern FF cameras for a fraction of the cost.

 

[anyone]

Consider making the choice based on the workflow, your gear that you already own (I guess you have a medium format system for which you want to buy the Credo), and your specific requirements. Possibly also the price is part of the equation. The sensor of the Credo is old but great, I have it in a Phase back in use.

A few questions to think about:
Do you need strong wide angle?
Do you want to use your back also on a tech camera?
Do you want to adapt a lot of lenses?
Do you enjoy the workflow of your medium format camera?
Do you need anything else than base ISO?

For adapting a lot of lenses, high ISO, the Fuji will be great. Strong wide angle possibly requires new glass.

For tech cam, workflow of an existing medium format camera the Credo would be the right choice.

A pure image quality comparison will be difficult I guess due to the different technologies, but I leave this up to the experts here.

 

[P. Chong]

For studio work with strobes, I find the older CCD sensors at base ISO are perhaps a bit better than modern high megapixel sensors. Nicer CCD colors. And the fat pixels...much prefer the smoother gradations in tones and contrasts from the Dalsa fat pixels to the more crunchy 100Mp image of the GFX. But the fat pixels are more prone to moire...and if you shoot people, the fabric on their clothes may be a problem.

 

[docholliday]

For studio work with strobes, I find the older CCD sensors at base ISO are perhaps a bit better than modern high megapixel sensors. Nicer CCD colors. And the fat pixels...smoother gradations in tones and contrasts from the Dalsa fat pixels to the more crunchy 100Mp image of the GFX. But the fat pixels are more prone to moire...and if you shoot people, the fabric on their clothes may be a problem.

The demoire tool in C1 does really good, as well as simply turning the camera by 0.01deg. Never had a problem with it when I had a fat pixel back.

 

[MGrayson]

A lot of what you're paying for in the GFX100 is the stabilization. Is that a useful feature? There is a good 17mm lens with a Fuji G mount, so ultra-wide isn't an issue. The Fuji is awfully convenient, but I would rather have the 60MP CCD sensor's images. (I used an IQ160 for a week, and an IQ140 for a year.) It's not a question of what comes OOC (crunchy?) but how hard it is to get what you want. I'm always fighting with the Fuji files. Boosting contrast and cutting saturation helps, but the older CCD sensors give good color very easily. This is not a CCD vs. CMOS issue. There are CMOS cameras with easier color (for me). And it's also personal. There are serious people who prefer the Fuji colors.

And finally, older technology becomes harder to use over time, e.g., adapters that no longer adapt. I can probably still connect SCSI drives, but I wouldn't want to rely on them.

No bad choices here!

 

[bythewei]

Precisely why I cannot make up my mind. My heart says Credo/IQ 60 but my mind says GFX100.

 

[mjr]

This would be a clear decision for me, having used and loved an IQ260 for a good while and loved the GFX50S for even longer, in the studio I'd take the Credo every time. Although usable, evf in the studio is just rubbish for me, plus the files from the 60mp back are so beautiful, deep and rich with amazing tones. If you're working under controlled light then it's awesome.
Let us know which way you go, either is a great system, despite their differences.

Mat

 

[bythewei]

This would be a clear decision for me, having used and loved an IQ260 for a good while and loved the GFX50S for even longer, in the studio I'd take the Credo every time. Although usable, evf in the studio is just rubbish for me, plus the files from the 60mp back are so beautiful, deep and rich with amazing tones. If you're working under controlled light then it's awesome.
Let us know which way you go, either is a great system, despite their differences.

Finally, someone with experience with both systems! In your opinion, does the difference in sensor size makes any difference optically?

 

[drevil]

i'd say the GFX system is much more future proof, and i knew the sentiment, but even phase made a statement that the difference between ccd and cmos is a myth.
after all its just profiles, the pixels just catch light photons and interpretate them as brighter or darker

i think in a studio it doesnt matter if you have a leaf shutter or not and i think the live view capability is a really nice to have for critical focus
i do own a gfx100 and just love it

 

[mjr]

Finally, someone with experience with both systems! In your opinion, does the difference in sensor size makes any difference optically?

I have only used the 50s, not the 100 although I am sure the evf experience is very similar. I don't think the sensor size has much of an impact beyond the differences in rendering from the bigger pixels, depends what you're shooting, full length, tight portraiture etc and whether you have the glass you need.

I have read many people much smarter than me proclaim zero difference between ccd and cmos, and yet I can pick every single file from Leica S 006 and IQ260 from my images, with absolute ease. Does that mean anything? Probably not. If I were in your position and needing a general purpose camera for daily use in and out of the studio, I'd take the Fuji, in the studio alone, Credo. Just my opinion!

Mat

 

[MGrayson]

I have only used the 50s, not the 100 although I am sure the evf experience is very similar. I don't think the sensor size has much of an impact beyond the differences in rendering from the bigger pixels, depends what you're shooting, full length, tight portraiture etc and whether you have the glass you need.

I have read many people much smarter than me proclaim zero difference between ccd and cmos, and yet I can pick every single file from Leica S 006 and IQ260 from my images, with absolute ease. Does that mean anything? Probably not. If I were in your position and needing a general purpose camera for daily use in and out of the studio, I'd take the Fuji, in the studio alone, Credo. Just my opinion!

Mat

Mat,

I have the same response to my own captures. The CCD Leica S(006) and the CMOS Leica S(007) are VERY close, but not identical. I believe that this is a "problem" of wider dynamic range on the CMOS. No one would make a profile that deliberately clips highlights, shadows, or colors, and so the CMOS default profiles are flatter. So in a sense, both camps are right. There's no NEED for CCD and CMOS to be different, but in practice, the provided profiles look different.

I'm really guessing,

Matt

 

[mjr]

Hmm, I know what you're saying Matt although I don't honestly believe I've ever left a shot at default profile, I have a massive stock of profiles all very different, bottom line for me without really understanding/caring why, I can see easily and prefer the final images from the S and Phase over everything else I have shot with. It's entirely personal though and stepping out of the studio, there's a clear benefit to high ISO's etc. Mind you, I'd never be looking at a GFX 100, the 50S was awesome and would give me everything I need. In fact I am guessing the Credo and a good 50s would likely be less than a 100, that would be my choice, best of both worlds.

 

[MGrayson]

Hmm, I know what you're saying Matt although I don't honestly believe I've ever left a shot at default profile, I have a massive stock of profiles all very different, bottom line for me without really understanding/caring why, I can see easily and prefer the final images from the S and Phase over everything else I have shot with.
...

I agree, and it bugs the hell out me because I don't understand it. Maybe it's as simple as CCD's needing better light, so the images captured with them are better lit?

 

[bythewei]

Sorry to intercept the discussion, but is there any significant difference in the look between a 44x33 output and 54x40 output? i.e the medium format look.

I don't quite see it on the 44x33 (compared to 24x36), I'm not sure if the 54x40 (compared to 24x36) is any better...

 

[bythewei]

Actually you know what? I think Ming Thein, who is *former* Director of Strategy for Hasseblad, wrote a thoughtful article that covers what many here are talking about:

That medium format ‘look’: what is it?

Four Today’s article attempts to answer a question which I’ve been asked quite a few times, both in comments and offline correspondence: what is the ‘medium format look’, and why do we find it attr…

blog.mingthein.com

 

[SrMphoto]

Actually you know what? I think Ming Thein, who is now Director of Strategy for Hasseblad, wrote a thoughtful article that covers what many here are talking about:

That medium format ‘look’: what is it?

Four Today’s article attempts to answer a question which I’ve been asked quite a few times, both in comments and offline correspondence: what is the ‘medium format look’, and why do we find it attr…

blog.mingthein.com

BTW: Ming Thein left Hasselblad two years ago.

 

[P. Chong]

Ming is not at Hasselblad anymore. Left a while ago.

 

[bythewei]

I stand corrected