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

[DB5]

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

Thanks so much for putting your thoughts and feelings down. Much appreciated and I enjoyed reading it, beautiful pictures too. I was hoping in your conclusion you would draw a comparison to the Leica S image quality in the end. What are your thoughts on this now?

 

[jrp]

Here's quite a comprehensive test https://www.focus-numerique.com/hybride/tests/fujifilm-gfx-50s-3047.html

 

[mjr]

Thanks so much for putting your thoughts and feelings down. Much appreciated and I enjoyed reading it, beautiful pictures too. I was hoping in your conclusion you would draw a comparison to the Leica S image quality in the end. What are your thoughts on this now?

Thanks, glad you enjoyed reading it, not very comprehensive I know but not had it long. I stayed away from image quality comparisons, basically because I haven't used it enough to tell yet and still learning how to process the GFX files. As others have pointed out, there is a massive amount of flexibility in processing but I'm not looking to produce images that highlight what the camera can do, I want to produce the images I like, even if that is well within the cameras abilities, getting to that point needs a little more practice as it's easy initially to push to extremes. I have no doubt over the coming weeks I will get more of an idea and will update the blog.

Cheers

Mat

 

[hcubell]

Here's quite a comprehensive test https://www.focus-numerique.com/hybride/tests/fujifilm-gfx-50s-3047.html

Thanks for the link. There is a seemingly interesting chart in the section entitled "Reactivite et Autofocus." Can someone who understands French explain what the chart shows? I tried running it through Google Translate and the translation wasn't helpful.

 

[Speedgraphic]

I have a feeling that GFX users are not going to be swayed by whether or not an Otus on a 35mm camera is slightly higher resolution at 5.6.

Like seriously why do we even have these conversations?

 

[pegelli]

Like seriously why do we even have these conversations?

+1
For me photography is about light, composition, depth, impact, emotion, beauty.
I find pixel peeping (and for that matter sharpness and resolution) overrated and of limited value for what I'm trying to achieve.

 

[Frederic]

Thanks for the link. There is a seemingly interesting chart in the section entitled "Reactivite et Autofocus." Can someone who understands French explain what the chart shows? I tried running it through Google Translate and the translation wasn't helpful.

They measure wakeup time, shutter and autofocus lag. There's probably a typo somewhere in the second or third line, as both refer to the actuation delay using the mechanical shutter. My guess is the second one measures the electronic shutter delay, and the third is for the mechanical one.

 

[hcubell]

They measure wakeup time, shutter and autofocus lag. There's probably a typo somewhere in the second or third line, as both refer to the actuation delay using the mechanical shutter. My guess is the second one measures the electronic shutter delay, and the third is for the mechanical one.

Thanks. There are three types of shutter releases: regular mechanical, EFCS, and full Electronic. Unfortunately, there are two separate delay numbers listed in the chart, but we can't figure out from the chart which of the three are listed. The .09 seconds number is probably for EFCS, as a 90 millisecond shutter lag correlates to my observations with the GFX. I would send them an email but I can't compose it in French.

 

[Oren Grad]

They measure wakeup time, shutter and autofocus lag. There's probably a typo somewhere in the second or third line, as both refer to the actuation delay using the mechanical shutter. My guess is the second one measures the electronic shutter delay, and the third is for the mechanical one.

My French is pretty rusty, but I think the text immediately above the chart...

Seul bémol : une latence au déclenchement en mode obturation électronique trop importante.

...is complaining that the delay with the electronic shutter is too long.

 

[Frederic]

Sure it is. But it's not clear which measurement they are referring to : 0.09 or 0.4s

 

[Oren Grad]

Sure it is. But it's not clear which measurement they are referring to : 0.09 or 0.4s

Fair point. Without a mirror to move out of the way, even 90 msec is a substantial delay. 400 msec would be pretty extreme.

 

[hcubell]

Fair point. Without a mirror to move out of the way, even 90 msec is a substantial delay. 400 msec would be pretty extreme.

90 msec is not a significant delay by the standards of many other cameras. The Leica M8 has a delay of 80 msec. The Hasselblad H series has a elay of 160 msec. I think the pro Canikon dslrs have a delay in the range of 40 msec. However, .4 seconds or 400msec is a serious delay. I would assume Frederic is right and the longer delay is with the electronic shutter. Yet, nobody with a GFX has complained about that.

 

[bernardl]

I personnally find these comparisons relevant.

The difference of sensor size isn't large, the 35mm cameras being compared will soon be replaced, offer many more options lenswise and many of us already have a large lens collection.

However tempted I am by the GFX, I having a hard time seeing how it would enable me to do thinks I can't already do as well/better with the D810/H6D combo.

I see how it makes sense for Fuji, but for guys like me not really. Still, quite a few buyers such as Paul and Quentin own equipment similar to mine and stillwent for the GFX, which is why I bother posting this. I am trying to understand whether they just bought a nice camera they could afford (nothing wrong with that obviously), or whether they expect a concrete photographic value compared to their existing equipment? If yes, what?

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[voidshatter]

I have a feeling that GFX users are not going to be swayed by whether or not an Otus on a 35mm camera is slightly higher resolution at 5.6.

Like seriously why do we even have these conversations?

Maybe some users still want to defend their purchase?

I personnally find these comparisons relevant.

The difference of sensor size isn't large, the 35mm cameras being compared will soon be replaced, offer many more options lenswise and many of us already have a large lens collection.

However tempted I am by the GFX, I having a hard time seeing how it would enable me to do thinks I can't already do as well/better with the D810/H6D combo.

I see how it makes sense for Fuji, but for guys like me not really. Still, quite a few buyers such as Paul and Quentin own equipment similar to mine and stillwent for the GFX, which is why I bother posting this. I am trying to understand whether they just bought a nice camera they could afford (nothing wrong with that obviously), or whether they expect a concrete photographic value compared to their existing equipment? If yes, what?

Cheers,
Bernard

You can't take Paul as an example - he simply buys almost every new camera, regardless of whether he needs to or not! :grin: I think he enjoys this process just like ladies buying new handbags and dresses!

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

I would say the DPReview article makes a lot of good points. I have not evaluated all they statements, but there is an awful lot of hype about MFD and understanding the differences may matter a lot.

Regarding DoF, you will get equivalent DoF and bluriness using equivalent focal lengths at equivalent apertures. That is a fact. If DPReview says it is so, it is still a fact. Large aperture 24x36 mm lenses used be not so good, but nowdays we have a lot of great options and with live view we can even focus them correctly!

Another statement often made is that MFD gives different perspective. But, there is only one way of changing perspective and that is to move the camera. With shifts we can have different projection, but that is something different from perspective.

Their DR comparison (house against bright sky) does not include the GFX, only the Nikon D800/D810, Canon 5DIII and Petax 645Z. I checked out the raw data and raw histograms on Nikon D810 and Pentax 645Z are very close. So, it is a well excuted test.

What is confusing to me is the difference in exposure 3s on the D810 and 1s on the Pentax 645Z. That needs some more raw digging. I see more noise in the raw data on the Pentax and that is not consistent with Bill Claff's data, for instance. More digging needed.

Essentially, I would expect the Pentax 645Z to have a 65% ISO advantage over Sony 24x36, like performing at 160 ISO like 24x36 mm at 100 ISO.

Regarding MFD and smaller formats I think we need to look at things like use cases:

• Need for high speed flash sync?
• Is moiré an issue?
• Need for tilt and shift?
• Portability/mobility
• Axial chroma a problem?
• Print sizes?
• Etc

Best regards
Erik

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

 

[voidshatter]

Their DR comparison (house against bright sky) does not include the GFX, only the Nikon D800/D810, Canon 5DIII and Petax 645Z. I checked out the raw data and raw histograms on Nikon D810 and Pentax 645Z are very close. So, it is a well excuted test.

DPR's link for DR comparison

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi 'Void',

Thanks for the link! I will check out the raw files in the evening...

Best regards
Erik

DPR's link for DR comparison

View attachment 125903

 

[Paul2660]

Once again, you have a comparison where you need to upsample the Nikon to 50MP resolution or downsample the Fuji. If you were to upsample the Nikon odds are the noise would be very close.

The Fuji shows a bit of red cast, which I feel is due to the raw converter being used.

But no doubt the D810 at base ISO is still an excellent camera and has an amazing range.

I don't think anyone is attempting to disagree with that.

What will be interesting to me is if and when Nikon releases their next high MP body, which chip will be used and when and if the next 44 x 33 MF sensor comes out from Sony @ 80MP or 100MP how it lines up. Both of these should happen sometime in the next year.

Paul Caldwell

 

[voidshatter]

Once again, you have a comparison where you need to upsample the Nikon to 50MP resolution or downsample the Fuji. If you were to upsample the Nikon odds are the noise would be very close.

The "COMP" button I marked with red is to downsample every camera to the lowest pixel count - in this case, 36MP.

 

[Paul2660]

Got it. Missed that.

Paul Caldwell