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
