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!

thoughts on architectural photography with Fujifilm GFX, image circle and lenses

daf

Member
I tried the Leica S (007) once at the Photokina but focus accuracy with the S 100f2 was mediocre and they told me that the S system does not have auto focus micro adjustment, so this already reduced my interest in the system. Another reason is my experience with reliability of Leica products: All my Leica M components had to see Leica service (Leica M9 for sensor exchange and focus adjustment, M50f1.4 asph. FLE for focus precision adjustment and focus ring too tight, M75f2 asph. FLE for focus precision adjustment and didn't reach infinity). Then if you read the nightmare reports in the Leica S forums (sensor cracks, sensor corrosion, af failure, electronics issues ...) plus no S camera or lens announcements since several years and considering the Leica boutique prices you are wondering what kind of policy Leica is following.

Since the arrival of the Fuji GFX and Hasselbald 1XD systems, Leica is no longer alone in the crop MF universe. I use the Fuji GFX since day one of market release, now with the 23/ 45/ 63/ 110 lenses, plus I have extended experience with the Fuji X series using X-E1/ X-E2/ X-T1/ X-T2 cams and a variety of X series prime and zoom lenses over the years and all I can say is: Fuji products are extremely reliable (plus very frequent firmware updates that remove bugs and add functions or improve af speed and accuracy), I didn't have a single failure with any Fuji product and the GFX and the four primes surpass image quality any system I ever had: the Fuji version of the Sony sensor - even released 2014 - is visibly better (color accuracy, skin tones, 'pop', dynamic range/shadow recovery, sharpness due to small micro lenses) than the sensors of the Sony A7RII and the IQ180 and the GF primes are all on Otus level. I love the manual operation of the camera, the tiltable screen is very useful for candid shots (camera at waist level with screen tilted upwards) as well as for architecture shots by hand (camera position above head level with screen tilted downwards to reduce keystone), the many outside-center focus points and the face/eye detection AF function are such a help for portrait shots, all these features the Leica S does not provide.

100 MP, quicker phase-detect AF with even more focus points, an EVF with possibly higher resolution or at least reduced black-out time and higher refresh rate can be expected to come on the market within 2019 in the next camera body generation, the GF 250f4 plus 1.4x extender soon will add a tele lens, with the Steel Canon EF and Contax 645 AF adapters I can use my TSE lenses and Sigma Art lenses for very shallow DOF and the C645 lenses with auto-focus, this package and the perspective makes the investment into the GFX ecosystem very reasonable, also considering the rather moderate price level of the GFX components compared to the comparable Leica and Hasselblad offers.

IMO other than the absolute preference of an OVF camera and the 'look' of the S 006 Kodak CCD sensor I see little reason to invest in the S system.


Hi Chris,
I followed your post regarding shift lens option for quite long now, and it had always been very helpful.
I have a question regarding shift lenses on the gfx... as an architectural photographe i'm working on sony FF +shift lenses option since the first a7r... i'm very interested on your feed back on sony a7riii vs gfx for architectural shot.
I see more and more people using this cam on architcture, and don't really get the benefice vs the last sony ff.
Doing architecture, i'm most often need to correct for distorsion even with shift lenses, and find the C1 correction tool very important, how do you work on this with the gfx?
How are the lenses working on the gfx ? Smearing ? What fstop is needed?
Did you made any comparaison, say: 17tse on the sony // 24 tse on the gfx? Or 24 on the ff //35 on the gfx?
You talked about keystone correction, does this mean that you are now working with straigh lenses and then keytsone correcting? I'm fine with that(that what i do when working with my leicas), but if so, why ? due to poor compatibility with shift system?
Last, what do you feel this sytem bring you for architectural shot?
Thanks
David
 

chrismuc

Member
Dear all,

I am considering getting the Mirex adaptor to use my Hasselblad V lenses. Since I also have a Nikon body I would get the Mirex Nikon version and then an additional adapter to the GFX. I was wondering whether I should expect any differences in the amount of available shift between the Nikon or Canon Mirex versions (because of differences in the opening or mount)? Or is the amount of shift that can be applied only determined by the image circle of the lens?

Thanks!
I would suggest to use the Kipon Hasselblad V - Fuji GF adapter (15mm shift in any direction, no tilt). Advantages: Only one adapter (= cheaper, less risk of flex), larger central opening (= less risk of adapter vignetting). I use it with CF 50, 100, 180. Works perfectly.

Before I used the Mirex Hasselblad V - Canon EF tilt/shift adapter plus a Fotodiox Canon EF - Fuji GF adapter. Also works fine. I am not 100% sure if this adapter combo also allowed full 15 mm shift on the GFX without any vignetting due to the Mirex ... I think it was ok ... must check again (but I have these adapter not on hand right now).

The diameter of the Nikon mount is a bit smaller than the Canon so maybe for that combination of adapters the risk of vignetting due to the adapter(s) is a bit higher, but that's just my guess.
 

chrismuc

Member
Hi Chris,
I followed your post regarding shift lens option for quite long now, and it had always been very helpful.
I have a question regarding shift lenses on the gfx... as an architectural photographe i'm working on sony FF +shift lenses option since the first a7r... i'm very interested on your feed back on sony a7riii vs gfx for architectural shot.
I see more and more people using this cam on architcture, and don't really get the benefice vs the last sony ff.
Doing architecture, i'm most often need to correct for distorsion even with shift lenses, and find the C1 correction tool very important, how do you work on this with the gfx?
How are the lenses working on the gfx ? Smearing ? What fstop is needed?
Did you made any comparaison, say: 17tse on the sony // 24 tse on the gfx? Or 24 on the ff //35 on the gfx?
You talked about keystone correction, does this mean that you are now working with straigh lenses and then keytsone correcting? I'm fine with that(that what i do when working with my leicas), but if so, why ? due to poor compatibility with shift system?
Last, what do you feel this sytem bring you for architectural shot?
Thanks
David
Hi David,

thanks for your nice words.

As mentioned previously, I use for architecture photography always the same set of lenses: Canon TSE17, Canon TSE24, Contax 645 35 (pre-set to f11)+ Mirex shift adapter, Hasselblad CF50/ 100/ 180 + Mirex (or Kipon for GFX) shift adapter. First I used them with the Alpa FPS and IQ180 in order to achieve the 'ultimate' solution for architecture photography (avoiding a technical camera set-up with Schneider and/or Rodenstock lenses that I don't like much due to the corner color cast issues). When the Sony A7RII was released I bought it first as a back up but it proved to be so good (42 MP are mostly sufficient and the DR/shadow recovery is just great) so I started to use this system more and more (made me really lazy not to have to carry the heavy FPS set-up, also you can work quicker, especially during the short sun-down period you get more perspectives). The Fuji is like the Sony, just a bit - but visibly - better and I like shooting with the Fuji SO MUCH MORE than with the Sony. The first generation A7 IMO was a catastrophy in handling, the A7RII is acceptable but no real joy and the Fuji is - for my taste - nearly perfect, a 'real camera', not a menu-based computer with a sensor and a lens.

Regarding using 135 format lenses on the Fuji it is as mentioned in threads before. They have a certain image circle and within that, the image is sharp, outside smearing in the corners start. Of course the usable shift range on the Fuji is smaller than on the Sony due to the larger sensor of the Fuji. But on the other hand the angle of view is larger due to the same reason. At the end of the day, both systems achieve the same maximum angle of view within the sharp image circle.

Distortion correction, C1. I don't use Capture One, only ACR and Photoshop. The Canon TSE lenses have rather little distortion which I mostly correct directly in ACR. For correcting the Contax and Hasselbald lenses I normally use the Alpa lens correction plug-in. I adapted suitable correction files for the Sony and the Fuji cameras (I can share). This plug-in is very usable because you can correct the geometrical distortion under consideration of the applied shift movement. The distortion of the Fuji lenses is already applied in the camera/in the raw file.

F-stop. In 90% of the cases I use f11 for all lenses and shots for architecture. f8 might not have enough dof, f16 too much loss of sharpness due to diffraction. Sometimes f13 of f16 if more dof needed, especially with motives nearer to the camera or for interior design photography.

Keystone: Normally I try to avoid keystone correction in pp. If I use shift lenses this is seldomly required. In my post I refered to the usage of for example the 23mm GF lens without tripod for an architecture motive. Because that lens has no shift, I tried to hold the camera as high as possible but still had to tilt it a but upwards to catch the scenery. Then in post I corrected the converging vertical lines with keystone function in ACR.
Enclosed the result. Btw., a very contrasty motive, so the look of the image is a bit HDR like (but from a single raw file).

Comparing lenses on cameras with different sensor sizes. That's difficult because first one would need two lenses with focal lengths ratios that exactly would have to match the sensor size ratios. 24/17 or 35/24 does not match exactly 44/36mm sensor width for example. Second the longer focal length lens would need an image circle to allow 44/33 x shift value of the smaller focal length on the smaller sensor in order to match the same angle of view. Very roughly shifting 15mm with the 35mm lens on the Fuji would match shifting 12mm with the 24mm lens on the Sony. But still the angle of view of the shifted 35mm on the Fuji is slightly smaller than shifted 24mm on the Sony ... Anyhow, both solutions provide very good results, and as mentioned before IMO the FUJI result is just 'a bit better' or like I called it in another thread, - besides the slightly higher resolution - the Fuji files look a bit more 'relaxed', less 'stressed' because the pixels of the Fuji are a bit larger than the Sony's :)

Btw., this comparison of the two systems is pretty detailed and tells quite the same story:
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/sony-vs-fujifilm/sony-a7riii-vs-fuji-gfx-50s/

I think you simply must try the Fuji system and in case you see an advantage in image quality compared to the Sony, you must decide youself if the investment is worth for you the system change.

All best, Chris
2048_DSF7532.jpg
 

chrismuc

Member
enclosed a test with the GFX plus TSE17
ø*f16, pano from two pics shift +/- 12mm
- some vignetting in the corners
- some smearing towards the shifted edges (but no so terrible: see left lower corner crop)
quite astonishing which extrem angle of view one can catch in such high resolution (12745x6137pixel)

(the buildings in the pic look rather 'distorted' but actually they are curved and don't stand parallel to the sensor)

m_DSF7749-pano.jpgm_DSF7749-pano_crop.jpg
 

daf

Member
@ Chrismusc : Thanks a lot !
As always, it has been well explanned and very helpfull.
I might try one at time, but i'm a long C1 user, and it might be easier for me to stay with the sony (even if i have the same bad feeling regarding the sony camera...)
 

Owen

Member
The 50mm is brilliant, right up to the maximum shift range. It gets a lot more use now too that it's slightly wider. Only wish the 24 was anywhere near as good.

Hi all,

This is all very helpful - thank you!
I'm wondering if anyone else has had the chance to test the new Canon 50/90/135 TSEs

Do we know what their image circles are?

Thank you very much.

Cheers

Andrew
 

haihan

New member
Everyone,

Thank You so much for your input. I have finally rented one to test it out. liveview seems more amazing and focus much faster than I could on Canon out in the field by using the EVF. Digital leveling seems unsensitive compare to Canon.

Here's some really dull shots of the wall. I am an arch/id photographer, the intent for is test is to determine if these lens have enough image circle for shifting upwards and to how many mm could they go.

tech info: mirex P645 to EF ts adapter, P67 to 645 adapter, Kipon EF to GFX adapter, C1 pro (yes, this morning I was still doing the EXIF converting and suddenly all thing changes, it's really exciting isn't?) EF to GF adapter was giving "lens error" issues so I could not test out the Canon 90mm TS E and Canon 24mm TS E 10mm shift, these are 100% jpegs, full size, zero sharpening, zero CA corrections, processed by C1 pro 11.3

Lens test list:

Canon 17mm TS E
Canon 24mm TS E
Schneider 28mm PC
Contax Zeiss 35mm PC Distagon
Pentax 645 45-85mm
Pentax 645 80-160mm
Pentax 645 75mm
Pentax 645 120mm macro
Pentax 67 135mm macro

wish to test:

Pentax 645 HD D FA 35mm ( I have seen a low res brick wall photo before, the distortion is easy to correct )
Pentax 67 55-100mm

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v26pkdhlqlrz3zb/imagecircle_test_on_GFX50S.zip
 

TriElmar

New member
Hi,

Inspired by this post I just bought a TechArt adapter. But I am having problems (no manual in the box or on the website):

When I use my EF-lenses with the adapter the GFX seems to go in a forced 35mm crop mode: 3:2 is yellow in the menu of the camera and I cannot change this. All the files are only 6768x4512 px big (or better: small). My GFX is on firmware version 3.2. I don´t know how to check the firmware version of the adapter. Updating of the adapter is not possible because I use windows 7 64 bit or a MacBook Pro (tried it both).

Maybe I am missing something? Can you help?

Thank You!
 
Hi,

Inspired by this post I just bought a TechArt adapter. But I am having problems (no manual in the box or on the website):

When I use my EF-lenses with the adapter the GFX seems to go in a forced 35mm crop mode: 3:2 is yellow in the menu of the camera and I cannot change this. All the files are only 6768x4512 px big (or better: small). My GFX is on firmware version 3.2. I don´t know how to check the firmware version of the adapter. Updating of the adapter is not possible because I use windows 7 64 bit or a MacBook Pro (tried it both).

Maybe I am missing something? Can you help?

Thank You!
This is a setting of the camera, not of the adapter.
Go to: menu/shooting settings/mount adapter setting/35mm mode/
Set it to "Off".
If you set it to "Auto" or "On" it will use 35mm crop mode on all non native Fuji lenses.
Better is to set one of the function buttons for that. You can switch very fast.

Regards -
Marc
 
Last edited:

TriElmar

New member
This is a setting of the camera, not of the adapter.
Go to: menu/shooting settings/mount adapter setting/35mm mode/
Set it to "Off".
If you set it to "Auto" or "On" it will use 35mm crop mode on all non native Fuji lenses.
Better is to set one of the function buttons for that. You can switch very fast.

Regards -
Marc
Thank you Marc!

Now it works perfectly with my Canon TS-E 24mm II. A distortion correction of -3 in ACR (unshifted) seems to be all it needs and images look perfect.

Does anyone know how the native 4/23mm lens compares to the Canon TS-E 24mm II image quality wise?

Kind regards,
J. J.
 
Thank you Marc!

Now it works perfectly with my Canon TS-E 24mm II. A distortion correction of -3 in ACR (unshifted) seems to be all it needs and images look perfect.

Does anyone know how the native 4/23mm lens compares to the Canon TS-E 24mm II image quality wise?

Kind regards,
J. J.
Hi J.J.

a distortion correction for the unshifted image should not be necessary. I am quite sure that this results from the GFX embedding a correction profile for the Fuji 63mm lens to any lens it does not know (a behaviour which should be corrected by Fuji). The Techart adapter can prevent this. But you have to press the silver button on the adapter ANY TIME you switch on the camera - which should be changed by Techart. Removing the embedded profile should be the standard behaviour without having to press a button. Just doesn't make sense this way. This hassle is the reason why I recommend anybody to buy the Steelsring adapter instead of the Techart.

Best regards -
Marc
 

TriElmar

New member
Hi J.J.

a distortion correction for the unshifted image should not be necessary. I am quite sure that this results from the GFX embedding a correction profile for the Fuji 63mm lens to any lens it does not know (a behaviour which should be corrected by Fuji). The Techart adapter can prevent this. But you have to press the silver button on the adapter ANY TIME you switch on the camera - which should be changed by Techart. Removing the embedded profile should be the standard behaviour without having to press a button. Just doesn't make sense this way. This hassle is the reason why I recommend anybody to buy the Steelsring adapter instead of the Techart.

Best regards -
Marc
Hi Marc,

Thank you for this important information!
If you forget to press the button and use Adobe ACR you cannot remove the Fuji 63mm lens profile, even if you uncheck the respective box. It seems to be baked into the RAW file (not only the JPEG). But there is hope: Using Capture One you can choose the "Generic" profile in the lens correction menu. Then the Fuji lens profile is removed and you are all set.

Kind regards,
J. J.
 

Frederic

Member
Hi,

What about the internal vignetting cause by the adapter itself ? Any difference between the Techart and Steeelsring there ?
On some pics made with wide-angle lenses one can clearly see the internal frame getting in the way.

Thanks
Frederic
 

haihan

New member
Hello Audii-Dudii,

Yeah, I agree it's kinda over kill, but here's my take - the first layer of leveling half ball head give me fast leveling when I am on the ground, especially uneven ground where there's no time to adjust the tripod legs that often. second layer give precision leveling, the RRS pan head on top is just - I had enough with the linhof tightening knot, it's filmsy.

Give and take.

Why so many pan heads? It will surely be a little bit lighter still with only two instead of three of them.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Hello Audii-Dudii,

Yeah, I agree it's kinda over kill, but here's my take - the first layer of leveling half ball head give me fast leveling when I am on the ground, especially uneven ground where there's no time to adjust the tripod legs that often. second layer give precision leveling, the RRS pan head on top is just - I had enough with the linhof tightening knot, it's filmsy.

Give and take.
I understood why you were using the first two, but the RRS one on top was a puzzle to me.

But "just because" works for me!

Heck, probably half of the decisions I make about the gear I use are based on the same rationale ... lol. :D
 
Top