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!

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

iRentals.cn (the Chinese equivalence of lensrentals.com) has just tested the GFX 50S. They have found that the GFX 50S + 63mm f/2.8 combo is a tad softer than the 5DSR + Otus 55mm f/1.4 combo, when both are shot at f/5.6 with the center cropped at 100%.

639.JPG

640.jpg

They also found that the dynamic range of GFX at pixel level is below D810, but would get a draw when down-sampled to 36MP. The high ISO performance of GFX can be about the same as D5 if down-sampled to 20MP.

However, due to the small aperture of the 63mm f/2.8 lens, under low light situations (hand-held without strobe) the GFX is even a bit weaker than its APSC sibling - XT20 + 35mm f/1.4 due to purple shadow. The degree of bokehliciousness (separation of main subject from background, aka diameter of circle of confusion) is also a bit weaker than the APSC.

642.JPG

643.JPG

Other findings include inflated ISO numbers for the GFX, but that's not as severe as Fuji's APSC cameras.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
From these samples, I don't agree with the test results, which is just as well because I can test the same combo as a user myself. The 5DS bank note shot looks slightly less sharp (to me) than the GFX shot, but really, who cares what iRentals have found, these "tests" are nothing of the sort. Software used, sharpening, noise reduction, wind direction, state of the Union, user competance etc all affect the outcome.
 
From these samples, I don't agree with the test results, which is just as well because I can test the same combo as a user myself. The 5DS bank note shot looks lightly less sharp than the GFX shot, but really, who cares what iRentals have found, these "tests" are nothing of the sort. Software used, sharpening, noise reduction, wind direction, state of the Union, user competance etc all affect the outcome.
I think by 63mm f/2.8 they mean this.

641.JPG
 

atanabe

Member
A better comparison would be the Zeiss Otus 85 on the GFX compared to the Canon/Otus combo. The right thing would be an AF native lens from Canon in comparison vs native AF on the GFX. As an adapter is available to use the Zeiss lenses on the GFX, I think it would have been a better comparison of the sensor. I think the combo of the Zeiss Otus and Canon 5DSR comes to the same price ($3900+$4000) as the GFX and 63mm $6499 + $1500. So that part, dollar for dollar comparison is legit.

Basically, if it works for you, ergonomics, image quality for what your final output normally is (print or web) - shoot with it and be happy.
 
A better comparison would be the Zeiss Otus 85 on the GFX compared to the Canon/Otus combo. The right thing would be an AF native lens from Canon in comparison vs native AF on the GFX. As an adapter is available to use the Zeiss lenses on the GFX, I think it would have been a better comparison of the sensor. I think the combo of the Zeiss Otus and Canon 5DSR comes to the same price ($3900+$4000) as the GFX and 63mm $6499 + $1500. So that part, dollar for dollar comparison is legit.

Basically, if it works for you, ergonomics, image quality for what your final output normally is (print or web) - shoot with it and be happy.
Otus 85mm is sharper than Otus 55mm if I'm correct? (It's been a long while since I last checked)

If I remember correctly, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art (AF native) even scored better than the Otus 85mm f/1.4. I don't think there will be an advantage for the GFX + Otus 85 combo when the 5DSR is mounted with a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art (in terms of resolution).
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
A combination I hope to check, and which may be even less scientific, is the GFX v the Pentax K1 in pixel shift mode (which I own and rate very highly indeed). I'm banking on the Pentax edging it, but we will see.
 

tbullock

Member
There's also the DPReview article outlining similar points, almost all of which I've thought about and agree with. I think it summarizes and dispels with a lot of the myths around MF digital that keep getting rehashed here and elsewhere. But, for now at least, I happily have an X1D.
 
A combination I hope to check, and which may be even less scientific, is the GFX v the Pentax K1 in pixel shift mode (which I own and rate very highly indeed). I'm banking on the Pentax edging it, but we will see.
The pixel shift mode is perhaps useful for some people, but the usage can be limited for others, e.g. moving subjects, long exposure of stars/moving cloud etc.
 
M

mjr

Guest
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
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
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
 
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
Great pictures! Though no direct side-by-side comparison to justify one over the other.
 
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.

Paul Caldwell
I actually agree with the bokehliciousness comment.

63mm f/2.8 on 44x33 format is equivalent as 50mm f/2.2

35mm f/1.4 on APSC format is equivalent as 53mm f/2.1

No doubt the APSC Fuji can get a bit more background blur.
 
M

mjr

Guest
The detailed comparisons are based on what is relevant to me and so are not on the blog, every individual will look for different things so can't see the point of publishing them. In my practical experience with my shots, the D500 has nothing on the D810 in almost every situation except when needing high frame rate and fast af, very rarely for me. I have lots of glass for the D810 so it has a much wider shooting envelope, putting the 501.4 on the D810 against the 63mm on the Fuji with landscapes and the difference is clear.

I don't have any preference based on manufacturer or sensor size or anything, I just look at the images and make my choices. I also agree that processing is the key, the image I can create out of LR is inferior in every way to the one I get through C1 for example.

Just my opinions.

Mat
 
The detailed comparisons are based on what is relevant to me and so are not on the blog, every individual will look for different things so can't see the point of publishing them. In my practical experience with my shots, the D500 has nothing on the D810 in almost every situation except when needing high frame rate and fast af, very rarely for me. I have lots of glass for the D810 so it has a much wider shooting envelope, putting the 501.4 on the D810 against the 63mm on the Fuji with landscapes and the difference is clear.

I don't have any preference based on manufacturer or sensor size or anything, I just look at the images and make my choices. I also agree that processing is the key, the image I can create out of LR is inferior in every way to the one I get through C1 for example.

Just my opinions.

Mat
I take your point that each camera may have its advantage for certain use cases. However, when I read "reviews" or "opinions" from the internet, I'd only accept direct side-by-side comparisons at pixel-peeping level to validate that one choice is better than the other. Small down-sampled beautiful images without direct comparison won't really help me with my purchase decision. No comparison, no justification for me.
 
M

mjr

Guest
This may be a shock to you, but none of my opinions or decisions are taken or written to help you, they help me! Get a camera, shoot with it and then decide what you want, easy!
 
This may be a shock to you, but none of my opinions or decisions are taken or written to help you, they help me! Get a camera, shoot with it and then decide what you want, easy!
No, getting one camera wouldn't help *me* decide what I want. I'd get at least two cameras at the same time. For example, some of your stunning GFX images may also be made by a Canon 5DSR + Otus with about the same image quality, and some of your beautiful Leica S images may also be made by a Nikon D810A with Sigma 14mm f/1.8 or 20mm f/1.4 with even better image quality; who knows? :loco:
 
M

mjr

Guest
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.
 
Top