GFX + 63mm is a tad softer than 5DSR + Otus, and a bit weaker than APSC for lowlight

[MGrayson]

Get a camera, shoot with it and then decide what you want, easy!

This is the only good camera advice. I haven't tried the Fuji yet, and now I'm afraid. Better in the hand than the S? I have never come across such a thing. (Canon 1 series is close.)

Mat, it may just be the subjects available to you in the past few weeks, but I like the color from the Phase and Leica better. Of course, the Fuji camera profiles will get better over time, so this may not be fair. Also, it doesn't matter what I think.

Best,

Matt

 

[mjr]

Hey Matt

Of course your opinion matters, just not in my camera buying decisions! Haha

Colour can not be judged at all from these shots, it's just snow and fog here, there is zero colour at the moment and I haven't had a portrait client in this last week, will get something more colourful next week I'm sure. I have lots of other shots just from taking my step daughter to horse riding, very dark, kids in bright clothes and the files are great, just not sharing that stuff.

The S feels great in the hand as you know, but I tend to move around a lot with a camera, you have to grip the S when holding it at your side, the Fuji has the big thumb lip which makes hooking your thumb in to it very easy and comfortable. Holding up to shoot, it's different to the S for sure,I still like handholding an S though.

Mat

 

[voidshatter]

I know! My images with the GFX were made at the same time as images with the D810 and the 50 1.4, the things that are important to me form my judgement and decisions, the things that are important to you will form yours but I have absolutely no doubt that you and I have every different requirements.

You get it! If you post a comparison of 100% crop between GFX+63/2.8 vs D810 + 50/1.4, then you can most likely help me make a decision to upgrade from my D810 + 50/1.4 towards a GFX+63/2.8. If you only post some stunning and beautiful images by GFX but these images are down-sampled to webpage sizes without any direct comparison, which can also be done with M43 systems easily, then these will only attract newbies to purchase the GFX, not seasoned gearfaggotry.

The comparison I posted here says there's little (or even negative) gain of GFX+63/2.8 over the 5DSR+Otus combo in terms of resolution, and a downgrade for low-light against the XT20+35/1.4. The comparison makes me also look into other comparisons and guess that a Sony A7R-II is perhaps better for me.

 

[tjv]

What's with the weird red / purple cast on the higher ISO GFX files? It looks horrible, but is it a LR / RAW conversion thing, or is there some weird stuff going on in the actual files?

 

[jduncan]

I'm not a reviewer, I tend to get a camera and shoot with it, look at the results and decide if it's worth keeping, fairly simple system really and allows me to judge based on having the camera in my hand and shooting what I want. I will say that all these reviews and stuff relate to very specific and individual requirements, not everyone shares the same needs and wants, ultimately you only have to buy what you want, who gives a **** if anyone else agrees, certainly not me!

Anyway, will not be of much interest because I don't ever write these things but I have some thoughts and experiences here, http://www.matrichardson.com/blog/2017/3/fujifilm-gfx-50s-one-camera-to-do-it-all based solely on shooting the GFX for a week or so alongside a D500 and D810, and not based on internet test charts.

Mat

You come up as defensive, your comparison es based on a different camera with lower resolution. Still, thanks for sharing, in particular for me the D810 is more relevant.

Best regards,

 

[Paul2660]

What's with the weird red / purple cast on the higher ISO GFX files? It looks horrible, but is it a LR / RAW conversion thing, or is there some weird stuff going on in the actual files?

It's a LR issue. I noted it from day one. It's a bit of a shocker until you try a different raw converter. Very clean and color cast free up to around 4000. I have not tried 12800 but have gone to 6000. Noise and resolution loss is there but no casting. Similar problem with the dpreview images. Fuji should have worked a bit harder on a solution with P1.

Paul Caldwell

 

[mjr]

You come up as defensive, your comparison es based on a different camera with lower resolution. Still, thanks for sharing, in particular for me the D810 is more relevant.

Best regards,

In what way defensive? My comparisons are against the camera I have, which it would replace and cameras I have had, both higher and lower resolution. I have not and will never suggest that because I use a camera, other people should too, it makes not one bit of difference to me what anyone else uses, the D810 is a great camera, I have made a lot of money with it, if it suits you then more power to you!.

Mat

 

[jdphoto]

This is tantamount to heresy in Fuji talk, but enough to make me wait until more users post reviews. I for one think using test targets in controlled environments have a lot of merit.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I can't disagree more with the Dpreview post, click bait. Many of the points they make just don't stand up, especially the BSI tech on the Sony and their comments on DOF MF/35mm. Even the comparison of the ISO 64 to 100 between the D810 and GFX has limited value again due the raw conversion of LR.

Also curious what raw converter was used for the high ISO testing of the GFX, if it was LR/ACR I am not totally surprised by the red cast. There are other raw converters that will do a better job. In fact the in camera jpgs may be better than the image if was from raw. If you shoot beyond 1600 ISO, you will need something else besides LR/ACR for now.

Pixel shift is real, trust me. I agree with Quentin, a good pixel shifted file will be very very close if not the same. The Fuji GF glass is excellent IMO and with the right raw converter you can get very good results. Pentax's mistake with Pixel shift was not to better support it. Currently the LR solution is terrible as it can't handle any motion, C1 can't figure it out or is concerned that it might compete with MF!! Silkypix does the best job, but I don't prefer their tools, and thus spend an inordinate amount of time with file that in C1 or LR would work much faster. The Iridient solution for Pixel shift is also very nice, but again lacks tools. (note if a one man show at Iridient could figure it out I would hope C1 could also by now). Silkypix Vr 8 is an improvement but not by much.

Paul Caldwell

Agree, Paul, and have recently been using Silkypix 8 because it works well (once you figure it out) with both GFX and Pentax K1 raw files, including pixel shift files. Quite why ACR / LR is less than great with GFX files is a mystery to me.

 

[JeRuFo]

So, all in all it does quite well. They pick three systems that each excel at something and it can almost keep up with all of them.
This still isn't the perfect camera ofcourse, but it can do a lot of things really well and it could be considered for a lot of types of photography, which is amazing for a system this small and relatively affordable.

 

[DougDolde]

Seems like the GFX would need to be stopped down more than f5.6, like f8 or f11 to get the best results

 

[MGrayson]

The S feels great in the hand as you know, but I tend to move around a lot with a camera, you have to grip the S when holding it at your side, the Fuji has the big thumb lip which makes hooking your thumb in to it very easy and comfortable. Holding up to shoot, it's different to the S for sure,I still like handholding an S though.

Mat

Truth be told, carrying it around with the 24 or 120 does tire the hand, even with a hand strap. I use the Peak Designs 2" shoulder strap and that's pretty comfortable for a few hours. Sigh. Will have to try the Fuji.

BTW, I've always liked Fuji color, so I expect great things from this camera.

Matt

 

[Paul2660]

Seems like the GFX would need to be stopped down more than f5.6, like f8 or f11 to get the best results

F11 @ 64mm excellent, just like with the P1 lenses if you are after a large hyper focal reach. You can easily reach to F14. Diffraction is there, but not as harsh as with the 100Mp P1 back. At 32mm, you can back down to F8 and still have quite a range.

If you are looking for F 1.2 type separation and bokeh, odds are this is not the right camera.

However there are plenty of adapters out there which will allow use of Canon or Nikon 35mm lenses and past around 24mm, the vignetting is not bad. The pre-referenced Otis in the OP's first post, would do very well on the GFX with the Cambo adapter.

The wider 35mm glass odds are will have issues in the corners with vignetting due to the smaller image circle.

Paul Caldwell

 

[voidshatter]

So, all in all it does quite well. They pick three systems that each excel at something and it can almost keep up with all of them.
This still isn't the perfect camera ofcourse, but it can do a lot of things really well and it could be considered for a lot of types of photography, which is amazing for a system this small and relatively affordable.

The limitation is still the lens system imo. For example, even though the GFX can match the high ISO performance of the Nikon D5 when the GFX is down-sampled to 20MP, the Nikon D5 can shoot at ISO 3200 with an f/1.4 lens while the GFX has to shoot at ISO 12800 with an f/2.8 lens. In real-world scenario the low-light performance of the GFX is very limited, because ISO 12800 of GFX is nowhere remotely close to ISO 3200 of Nikon D5.

 

[JeRuFo]

The limitation is still the lens system imo. For example, even though the GFX can match the high ISO performance of the Nikon D5 when the GFX is down-sampled to 20MP, the Nikon D5 can shoot at ISO 3200 with an f/1.4 lens while the GFX has to shoot at ISO 12800 with an f/2.8 lens. In real-world scenario the low-light performance of the GFX is very limited, because ISO 12800 of GFX is nowhere remotely close to ISO 3200 of Nikon D5.

Your expectations are a little unrealistic. You can't have it all with one body and lens, but you can have a lot. If they brought out a 1.4 lens for this size sensor you'd probably complain that it doesn't resolve enough and the field curvature is insane.
I think they hit a nice sweet spot with this system. Some lenses with nice character, some designed for resolution and a zoom for versatility. All quite affordable. But no, if you want to shoot handheld in the dark a D5/1DX or a Leica with a fast lens is probably a better bet if not for the extra light, then for the better focussing. Still I'd quite happily use this at a bright wedding venue or outside.

 

[Paratom]

I am not interested in the GFX but drawing conclusion on some boaring images of money and coins with boaring color would be the last thing I would base my decision on.
Typical case of pixel peepinh which doesnt have to do anything with the real word (IMO).

 

[voidshatter]

I am not interested in the GFX but drawing conclusion on some boaring images of money and coins with boaring color would be the last thing I would base my decision on.
Typical case of pixel peepinh which doesnt have to do anything with the real word (IMO).

You are welcome to post real-world stunning images, but (for me) real-world images have to include a side-by-side comparison at pixel-peeping level (against another camera/lens).

 

[jduncan]

In what way defensive? My comparisons are against the camera I have, which it would replace and cameras I have had, both higher and lower resolution. I have not and will never suggest that because I use a camera, other people should too, it makes not one bit of difference to me what anyone else uses, the D810 is a great camera, I have made a lot of money with it, if it suits you then more power to you!.

Mat

Hi,
It's because of this comment:

"Anyway, will not be of much interest because I don't ever write these things but I have some thoughts and experiences here, http://www.matrichardson.com/blog/20...a-to-do-it-all based solely on shooting the GFX for a week or so alongside a D500 and D810, and not based on internet test charts.
Mat"

This is not important, it just seems defensive, but maybe it was not.
Best regards,

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Re: GFX + 63mm is a tad softer than 5DSR + Otus, and a bit weaker than APSC for lowl

I agree with Mat, the only tests that matter are those done by yourself with real world images. I am not impressed with tests others conduct under different conditions with different software and different settings and conclusions that suggest Sony have wasted their time and have produced, in 2016, a medium format sensor design with inferior characteristics to earlier, smaller pixel pitch designs. As a concept , that sounds implausible and in my experience to date, it is simply wrong.

You'd need to be a tad softer in the head to believe it

 

[Paratom]

You are welcome to post real-world stunning images, but (for me) real-world images have to include a side-by-side comparison at pixel-peeping level (against another camera/lens).

Since I am not in the business for another MF camera I wouldnt waste my time with comparison shots with the gfx. If I was in the business I would try to get a test unit and use it it for my typical subjects and have a look at the results and the handling. But everybody has his own ways of making decisions.