Old vs new.

[Paul Spinnler]

Its not at all comparable.

The tech cam process has also to do with joy of use of exquisite optics and fine precision cameras and the meditative aspect of using a large-format-esque process for composition by shifting, let alone the fact that you have access to a modular world of optics and backs.

The Fuji by contrast is an utilltarian, budget camera which will be iterated away value wise in the next GFX they drop for 6k.

A pattern observed is actually people moving into Fuji from classic tech cams to then go back to wanting the flexibility of say an R or Alpa for the vast choice of vintage and modern glass + the process or they have both - Fuji for quick and dirty "budget work" and the tech cam for the joy and private work.

Besides, the TS is humongous so its not even a case for saving weight. If you can afford a good digital back, don't need to do dime-a-dozen commissioned photography where speed to end deliverable is key (ie same-day) - IMHO the classic tech cams are irreplaceable both in terms of results and joy of use.

Of course, if money is the object, then you might need to go for Fuji / TS or Canon / TSE as these options are cheaper - but that's then an additional constraint.

A mint 40 HR in R just sold for 4500 EUR – that's around the price of the TS, so I am not sure why you'd want to lock yourself down in a handheld mirroless form factor and electronic system bound lens for the same price.

 

[rdeloe]

The Fuji by contrast is an utilltarian, budget camera which will be iterated away value wise in the next GFX they drop for 6k.
...
Of course, if money is the object, then you might need to go for Fuji / TS or Canon / TSE as these options are cheaper - but that's then an additional constraint.

Paul, I think you have lost sight of how it sounds when you suggest that Fuji cameras are for cheap and unserious people. There are serious photographer on this forum who make their living using Fuji equipment and who can afford whatever they need who, I'm sure, are rolling their eyes when they read this stuff.

Fuji GFX cameras and lenses are serious, professional tools. The OP may end up buying Fuji, or Hasselblad, or Phase One, and may choose a technical camera, or a digital view camera, or just go with tilt-shift lenses. These are all good choices that offer different functionality and experience.

 

[rdeloe]

Yeah I get that the newer systems have some advantages, that Fuji 30mm T/S does look really really good, I've just never touched Fuji before so it's new territory - what do you make of the colour rendering of the Fuji? Some people go on about Hasselblad colour science being the best, do you think there's anything in that - or is it a bunch of nonsense?

I'm actually heading down to a camera shop tomorrow to try out an X2D and a GFX 100S II, so i'll have a better idea - I do like the X2D - I just also really really want movements.

The "colour rendering" thing is overdone. Hasselblad has done a nice job of creating a standard output from RAW files developed in Phocus that a lot of people really like. I like it too. It's not more "real" or "natural" than other profiles, but it's very pleasing and feels right to many people. However, you need to use Phocus to get that look as Hasselblad intended. That is a bridge too far for me. I have brought Hasselblad RAW files into Lightroom and can tried to get close to how they look in Phocus. I can get very close without a lot of work. Many people just use Lightroom and go with whatever looks good to them.

Fuji takes a different approach. There is no "Fuji Natural Colour System" that mirrors Hasselblad. Fuji's thing is the in-camera JPEG engine that creates JPEG files a lot of people like. I wouldn't use a GFX camera to make JPEGs, so I shoot RAW. LR and C1 both offer simulations of Fuji's colour profiles. And then there are countless other ones out there you can use from Adobe and third party camera profile developers. Of course you can also use these on Hasselblad files in LR.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Paul, I think you have lost sight of how it sounds when you suggest that Fuji cameras are for cheap and unserious people. There are serious photographer on this forum who make their living using Fuji equipment and who can afford whatever they need who, I'm sure, are rolling their eyes when they read this stuff.

Fuji GFX cameras and lenses are serious, professional tools. The OP may end up buying Fuji, or Hasselblad, or Phase One, and may choose a technical camera, or a digital view camera, or just go with tilt-shift lenses. These are all good choices that offer different functionality and experience.

Thanks for pointing it out Rob. I want to clarify:

I mean relatively speaking budget within the category of medium format digital photography - absolutely speaking nothing is budget in digital medium format, agree and don't want to diminish this fact.

This said, its clear that Fuji re-jigged the category boundaries when introducing its price breaking systems a few years ago, significantly lowering the price barrier, and therefore creating this new intermediate zone beyond high-end 35mm systems which typically topped out at the 6k range, plus minus.

In absolute terms a Canon R5 MK I or SL2 may be the better solution, as it has enough resolution and excellent optics beating most likely the output possible more than 10y ago with 50k systems.

Compared to RF glass or Nikon Z glass, which are excellent nowadays, also the Fuji TS is a bit of a luxury at 4k for one lens. Excellent TSE lenses can be had between 1-2k and the RF glass hovers around this level too.

So if you want to up your ante from the new high quality mirrorless 35mm systems - your budget solution is the Fuji as it is a bit more expensive than high-end 35mm, but does not go into absurd MF territory.

The good news is though that one can optimize:

1) Bellows camera vs. tech cam for cheap mounting
2) Vintage digital tech cam glass (e.g. sinaron digital)
3) An IQ3 100 or IQ2 260

All of a sudden movement based photography with digital backs is within reach if you compromise on the type of camera, lens generation and back

 

[anyone]

I have used all of the systems: Phase One (until IQ1 60), GFX, and Hasselblad.

We shouldn’t drift away towards a pure system debate as the thread is about a system + lenses.

So just one comment: the GFX is a very capable camera system. It is not only affordable (which is a good aspect in my books), but also on a very high level image quality wise. And from the toughness perspective, it easily beats the other medium format systems. And if something breaks, the Fuji service is fast. I am moving away from the GFX because I had a difficult time with the colors, but that is a limitation on my side, not the camera. Numerous people here show really nice colour images made with the GFX.

To the original question, I would more ask which kind of workflow you enjoy and start from there. The image quality is on a very high level on each system.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Maybe an option is to try the systems for a week and compare.

All the nice lenses and bodies don't help if you can't stand the colour signature of a brand's interpretation of a sensor, I didn't like at all the Mamiya Leaf colours back in the day and Hasselblad's HNCS to this day seems to be universally appreciated.

Other swear by Phase 1 + Capture One; a factor not to be underestimated!

 

[TimG]

I am moving away from the GFX because I had a difficult time with the colors, but that is a limitation on my side, not the camera. Numerous people here show really nice colour images made with the GFX.

Out of curiosity, what as the issue you had with the colours?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Tim, there's a new camera from Arca - non pancake - which might be interesting for you too. You can mount a GFX as a back replacement on the backside and on the front you can adapt almost anything. Its intriguing.

The Arca Pico.

 

[thedigitalbean]

I currently have all of these systems and I think there's elements of truth to what everyone is saying and it's really going to come down one's shooting needs and to some extent one's subjective opinion. For me, I much prefer working in Lightroom and also prefer minimum amount of time in front of a computer. I know others prefer C1 and also like having dialed in flows and maybe even enjoy working on a computer on their files. That's not me and it influences my choices.

First, from a color perspective, IMO Hasselblad and Leica (yep got that system too) are at the top. HNCS isn't entirely marketing fluff and no you don't need Phocus to benefit from it (though in some situations, Phocus can give you a slightly better file). The biggest benefit I see is in the reproduction of certain hues (greens and skin tones) and this is a benefit you get even when using the Hasselblad files in LR. I have a similar feeling about Leica and their color science, it's less twiddling to just get certain hues and tones to look right. Next for me would be the IQ4 150 in C1. After that Canon and then Fuji.

A big subjective factor for me is the joy I get from actually using the equipment. My goal isn't as much in getting a final image, but more in enjoying the process, being out in nature, etc. I really do NOT enjoy using the GFX. Other than the screen that articulates in all directions, there is nothing about the experience I like, from the buttons, the UI, the menus. The X2D and the IQ4 150 are much more enjoyable to use. Even the Canon R5 is far more enjoyable over the GFX. Again, it's a purely subjective thing and I know others who love their GFX.

Then, I come to practicality especially when traveling which has limits on the camera bag I can take and how much weight I can pack in. I also often have to have a kit with a wide 'shooting envelope' so that I can deal with a variety of subjects (sometimes I may do landscape and wildlife) and weather conditions. This is where the size and weight of the technical camera and its limited shooting envelope has led me to leave it at home in recent years.

For movements, I need compound movements (tilt and swing) primarily for my intimate landscapes which for me means lenses (in 35mm equivalent FOV) between 35mm - 90mm. I've used the Canon 50 and 90 TS-E on the GFX and it does an decent job, but dealing with situations where you need compound movements is a major pain. In those situations the Actus works amazingly well. If you need only tilt and especially only in 1-2 focal lengths, I'd take a serious look at this option. If you need shift for architecture, then I don't think this will cut it.

What I'm evaluating now (and slowly building up to) is having a combo system built on the Cambo Actus (the Arca Pico would also be a candidate) combined with a couple of Schneider lenses for the tech camera aspect and then using the 20-35 and some kind of telephoto for longer options. On Fuji, the lenses choices are a bit better in this regard. I have a target camera bag this all has to fit into and am tracking the weight of each item in a sheet.

 

[lookbook]

Yeah I get that the newer systems have some advantages, that Fuji 30mm T/S does look really really good, I've just never touched Fuji before so it's new territory - what do you make of the colour rendering of the Fuji? Some people go on about Hasselblad colour science being the best, do you think there's anything in that - or is it a bunch of nonsense?

I'm actually heading down to a camera shop tomorrow to try out an X2D and a GFX 100S II, so i'll have a better idea - I do like the X2D - I just also really really want movements.

.. it's a good idea for you to take the cameras into your own hands and get advice.
If you live in the USA, you can also ask https://www.captureintegration.com/, which supports the forum here and is a very popular partner.

I can't really tell you anything about colors myself, as I've always taken black and white photos.
As all digital photos consist of 0 and 1, it should be possible to match any color taste with any recording device.
Of course, it's not that easy to do - but it's possible.

I remember a request here in the forum where someone had to reproduce "natural colors" photographically - that is, to match the original exactly.
Even under standardized recording conditions, it wasn't easy.

What I'm trying to say is that what we see in colored images does not correspond to the colors that were photographed, but to those that were made from them.
Every manufacturer will try to match the taste of the time. The taste of the time is constantly changing - the colors can be adapted.

 

[anyone]

Out of curiosity, what as the issue you had with the colours?

It took me a lot of time to tweak images to reach pleasing colors. It wasn’t so much the global color balance, but I had to work on certain parts of the image to get it right. I didn’t enjoy that process. I could have gone down the road finding color profiles better matching my vision of what I want to achieve, but then I went for the CFV100c instead as well as the Leica SL2. Both systems are much easier for me to work with to get pleasing color output.

 

[TimG]

A big subjective factor for me is the joy I get from actually using the equipment. My goal isn't as much in getting a final image, but more in enjoying the process, being out in nature, etc. I really do NOT enjoy using the GFX. Other than the screen that articulates in all directions, there is nothing about the experience I like, from the buttons, the UI, the menus. The X2D and the IQ4 150 are much more enjoyable to use. Even the Canon R5 is far more enjoyable over the GFX. Again, it's a purely subjective thing and I know others who love their GFX.

Yeah it's interesting, because when you boil it down - the digital back in most cases, is the same 100MP sensor built from the same fabrication plant, encased in somebody else's housing with somebody else's software, but the usage of the thing in the field is very important.

A while back I used a Pentax 645D for about 6 months and I HATED it, I couldn't stand it and I don't know why - everything I shot with it looked terrible, I don't really know why - and I don't want to recreate that experience.

I went from the 645D to the Cambo WRS + IQ260 combo and loved it (except for the weight..)

I remember shooting 5x4 on my Linhof, composing upside down under a good with Velvia quickload - if I could go back to that in a practical way I would, it was magical - it made me focus and take so much time, I shot some amazing stuff on it.

So I take your point - the systems can technically be the same or almost the same on paper, but they all behave very differently, and that can make or break you - in terms of user experience.

PS: I LOVE your penguin images on your website!

 

[TimG]

It took me a lot of time to tweak images to reach pleasing colors. It wasn’t so much the global color balance, but I had to work on certain parts of the image to get it right. I didn’t enjoy that process. I could have gone down the road finding color profiles better matching my vision of what I want to achieve, but then I went for the CFV100c instead as well as the Leica SL2. Both systems are much easier for me to work with to get pleasing color output.

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Reminds me a bit of Canon, about 15 years ago I got the Canon 1DS MkIII and the colours it put out were just pleasing, hard to explain - but everyone noticed.

 

[anyone]

I remember shooting 5x4 on my Linhof, composing upside down under a good with Velvia quickload - if I could go back to that in a practical way I would, it was magical - it made me focus and take so much time, I shot some amazing stuff on it.

The Linhof Techno might be a camera for you, especially since you like movements - it‘s basically a very precise field camera. The experience mirrors 1:1 the analogue workflow to digital: composing on ground glass, then sliding to the digital back on the sliding back, and taking the image. It has its weight, but it is not excessive. And most obviously, shooting with it takes time, but the reward are carefully composed images. One saves weight on the lens cones compared to Cambo.

Myself, I use the Cambo system these days as I mainly shift.

Disclaimer: I do try to sell my Techno (Link) since quite a while.

 

[TimG]

The Linhof Techno might be a camera for you, especially since you like movements - it‘s basically a very precise field camera.

Yeah I love the techno - had a go on one a few times, problem is it comes in at 1.9KG, I have some challenging hikes planned for next year and I just can't really tolerate that amount of weight, by the time I've got a 40 Rodie, digital back, batteries, filters, cables and other stuff - it's going to come in at 3-4KG.

I think from a technical camera point of view, the Phase One XT is currently most appealing, the body is only 700g - only problem is it's basically $7k for a Phase-one badged Cambo, with some electrical pins for their lens/IQ back combo (which is nice, but that's a serious amount of tax for the phase one name! )

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Yeah I love the techno - had a go on one a few times, problem is it comes in at 1.9KG, I have some challenging hikes planned for next year and I just can't really tolerate that amount of weight, by the time I've got a 40 Rodie, digital back, batteries, filters, cables and other stuff - it's going to come in at 3-4KG.

I think from a technical camera point of view, the Phase One XT is currently most appealing, the body is only 700g - only problem is it's basically $7k for a Phase-one badged Cambo, with some electrical pins for their lens/IQ back combo (which is nice, but that's a serious amount of tax for the phase one name! )

The XT has a few disadvantages, based on my own experience:

1) You cannot tilt when in portrait mode - that's a biggie and a fundamental design flaw;
2) Over time the shift info recording can become a big saggy; I have the issue that my 90 XT sometimes show -0.5Y although its clearly 0d in;
3) When doing stitches you need to manually turn the knob from one side to the other - wish it would be like with the Alpa where its a rail and where you can buy detents ex factory
4) The lenses are extremely expensive and bound to the system - what if P1 exits or the IQ5 is not appealing because its 3:2 and costs 48k?
5) Currently the long-rumoured XT XL is not here - mayb come next year with the IQ5 so the system is not that expandable.

All things to consider when going enclosed platform.

I do like:

1) Lack of cables
2) Metadata recording for vignetting and distortion correction
3) It has all four directions and is compact - at the price of 12mm, which means 70, 90 are underutilized

 

[TimG]

1) You cannot tilt when in portrait mode - that's a biggie and a fundamental design flaw;

Oh really? that's nuts - a lot of my compositions use strong foreground elements, so I rely on tilt to get depth of field through the scene - I shoot a lot of portrait landscapes, so thanks for letting me know that, with the Cambo I just used to turn the back by 90 degrees and everything else is the same..

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Oh really? that's nuts - a lot of my compositions use strong foreground elements, so I rely on tilt to get depth of field through the scene - I shoot a lot of portrait landscapes, so thanks for letting me know that, with the Cambo I just used to turn the back by 90 degrees and everything else is the same..

Well initially they didn't even design the XT lenses with tilt built-in as they rushed the system out of the door and there was no time to develop a tiltable XT housing with elextronic connection from the shutter through the moun. That was in 2019 when P1 was dressed up for sale to the next investor and the launch of the XT needed to happen in time to have another positive growth angle in the photography business.

As many photographers complained about that they added tilt later on, but you cannot upgrade Gen I XT lenses to tilt and on top the TILT variants are super expensive and orientation is fixed to portrait with the tilt - just look at the pics of the lenses.

If you turn the body 90 degrees the tilt becomes swing.

Its very stupid and a fundamental design flaw of the system and unfortunately there's no recourse.

That's why I have a kind of love / hate view on the system. The compact size and four-way shift is great, but then you have downers like lens price, lack of tilt in portrait, etc. and lack of broader XT ecosystem - ie where's the large XT?

Its gonna come in 2025, I suppose, but still annoying.

 

[Jonas Berg]

I have a similar setup but I haven't really found a backpack that suits me. You may not have any photos of your backpack, packed, to share

[/QUOTE]

The RM3di setup is quite compact. I can fit the camera, lenses (HBLD100C, 24XL, 35XL, 50HR, 70HR, 100N, 120Asph, 150N, 200mm Nikkor), filters, and other accessories into my Shimoda V2 35L pack. I don’t use the standard R-mounts for most lenses, which helps save a lot of space. With the RM3di, I can also take advantage of the built-in tilt feature across all lenses.

 

[thedigitalbean]

Weight wise, I would add up and consider the whole system. I found that once you go beyond about 2 lenses, weight wise the economics of lenses each with helicals but with a slightly lighter body gets inverted against one of these "small" bellows based systems with lenses on boards. Even the weight of the digital back is of consideration, the IQ4 150 is 850g where as the CFV 100c back is 460g.

Personally I am having a hard time convincing myself to invest further in anything Phase One based on what has happened the last few years (which Paul lays out very nicely).