Fuji GFX2 has sensor stabilization!

[narikin]

I heard that the upcoming 100mp Fuji GFX2 has in camera sensor stabilization. Quite important at 100mp, for a camera that is likely to be hand held a lot. A bit of a breakthrough, and very good news.

The disappointing news is it will likely not be available till next year, as late as Spring even. Announced earlier yes, but not for sale till 2019. Sigh.

 

[drevil]

we take you by your word

 

[DB5]

100MP Fuji GFX with IBIS and 80mm 1.4 (also rumoured) could get my money. That would be a ground breaking combination.

But it's likely the Hasselblad X will get it too, sooner or later , given DJI's involvement.

 

[Paul2660]

I was glad to see Fuji experimenting with IBIS with the X-H1.

Paul C

 

[narikin]

100MP Fuji GFX with IBIS and 80mm 1.4 (also rumoured) could get my money. That would be a ground breaking combination..

An f1.4 lens, if true, would be just for bragging rights - it would be quite soft at that aperture, with strong longitudinal Chroma aberations. Software would correct that a bit, but at a cost. The Contax 80/2 was hopeless till you got to near f4. I'd settle for an f2 lens that impressed at f2, and hit its peak at f2.8-4. The only people I'd trust to make an f1.4, heck, an f1.8 lens for MF would be Zeiss with an MF Otus, at $5000+. I don't see that happening though!

Oh, and no, an (adapted) Otus 50 f1.4, does not cover the crop MF sensor of a Fuji GFX, sadly.

 

[iiiNelson]

I heard that the upcoming 100mp Fuji GFX2 has in camera sensor stabilization. Quite important at 100mp, for a camera that is likely to be hand held a lot. A bit of a breakthrough, and very good news.

The disappointing news is it will likely not be available till next year, as late as Spring even. Announced earlier yes, but not for sale till 2019. Sigh.

I’m in favor of Fuji waiting until the Spring to release if it means increased testing that leads to a more stable camera at launch that doesn’t require firmware updates to fix. The GFX is a great camera and I think what they’re doing will push all the other MF makers to be even better.

Still waiting to see how Phase One responds and if there will be some sort of partnership with Sony to assist in designing the electronics behind a Mirrorless camera. Imagine if they had Eye AF AND OSPDAF across 80% or more of the sensor... that would be a game changer if the price was more accessible by Phase One standards.

 

[jduncan]

An f1.4 lens, if true, would be just for bragging rights - it would be quite soft at that aperture, with strong longitudinal Chroma aberrations. The software would correct that a bit, but at a cost. The Contax 80/2 was hopeless till you got to near f4. I'd settle for an f2 lens that impressed at f2, and hit its peak at f2.8-4. The only people I'd trust to make an f1.4, heck, an f1.8 lens for MF would be Zeiss with an MF Otus, at $5000+. I don't see that happening though!

Oh, and no, an (adapted) Otus 50 f1.4, does not cover the crop MF sensor of a Fuji GFX, sadly.

Hi,

I believe that your opinion is anachronic. With modern computer-assisted design, many companies equal and sometimes surpass Zeiss in terms of formal parameters. The Zeiss continue to have the Zeiss look and the 3D rendition, but some Sigmas are better in some formal regards.

Sigma, Hasselblad, Nikon, and Canon can make a low production 85mm 1.4 MF lens with stellar formal parameters.
They will not do so, probably, but they can. On the other hand, we have the issue of pleasant rendering and artistic merit. On that regard, Zeiss is pretty special (so is the combination of Hasselblad/ Nittoh lenses and Hasselblad profiles).

Best regards,

 

[DB5]

An f1.4 lens, if true, would be just for bragging rights - it would be quite soft at that aperture, with strong longitudinal Chroma aberations. Software would correct that a bit, but at a cost. The Contax 80/2 was hopeless till you got to near f4. I'd settle for an f2 lens that impressed at f2, and hit its peak at f2.8-4. The only people I'd trust to make an f1.4, heck, an f1.8 lens for MF would be Zeiss with an MF Otus, at $5000+. I don't see that happening though!

Oh, and no, an (adapted) Otus 50 f1.4, does not cover the crop MF sensor of a Fuji GFX, sadly.

Not really. It's only 1.1 in equivalence.

My most used lens is 0.95 and it's very high performance and practical in use. Infact it's a very versatile and indispensable tool. A larger lens made for medium format that is 1.4 is easier to design and manufacture than an 0.95 lens.

The Contax 80mm f2 is not hopeless at all and on film it shines. It is a creative tool that you choose for the way it looks and I use mine a lot wide open. It's also an old lens design now and a new 1.4 will mostly incomparable in design and build parameters and tolerance and will be far better suited to digital. The Leica 100mm f2 is astonishingly sharp in comparsion to the old Contax 80 f2 as is the Fuji 110 f2.

10x8 Large Format equivalence is f8 and reasonably common. The aesthetic and effects you get from these formats are now relatively available in small handheld medium format cameras and in some ways are better performing.

I'm sure some will buy it for bragging rights but I'm not one of those people. Most who will buy it do will just have a use for it and those people know what they are looking for.

 

[narikin]

The Contax 80mm f2 is not hopeless at all and on film it shines. It is a creative tool that you choose for the way it looks and I use mine a lot wide open.

Clearly your idea of a good sharp lens differs from mine. Let's leave it at that.

This thread is about the GFX2, not old lenses.

 

[narikin]

What is also a possibility here is: pixel shift.

If IBIS is indeed in the GFX2, then pixel shift can be added, to make 100mp into 400mp for still life and non-moving subjects!
This would be very damaging to Phase claiming of the digital high ground with a 150Mp back, etc.

 

[tcdeveau]

What is also a possibility here is: pixel shift.

If IBIS is indeed in the GFX2, then pixel shift can be added, to make 100mp into 400mp for still life and non-moving subjects!
This would be very damaging to Phase claiming of the digital high ground with a 150Mp back, etc.

If it does have IBIS and pixel shift, it could take a bite out of other manufacturers multishot backs too, at presumably a substantially lower price point, depending on software support. Will be interesting to see what happens with the next GFX :watch:

 

[DB5]

Clearly your idea of a good sharp lens differs from mine. Let's leave it at that.

This thread is about the GFX2, not old lenses.

I'm not sure why you bought up then? The 80mm f2 is not a sharp lens wide open. No one chooses that lens for a sharp lens.

 

[Paul2660]

What is also a possibility here is: pixel shift.

If IBIS is indeed in the GFX2, then pixel shift can be added, to make 100mp into 400mp for still life and non-moving subjects!
This would be very damaging to Phase claiming of the digital high ground with a 150Mp back, etc.

Pixel shift on a GFX platform would be a total first for Fuji. They did not implement it on the X-H1 and there has not been any talk of it. The IBIS on the X-H1 is also a bit strangely implemented when using it with a Fuji lens with OIS. At least for me.

Pentax and Pixel shift could have been a great story. Sadly C1/P1 never attempted to create support for it (never figured that out I guess) and LR/Adobe's implementation is less than stellar. The only software that really seems to handle it is the Silky Pix raw or Raw Therape neither of which I use. LR/Adobe could not handle any motion, but Silky Pix could do quite well. However Silky Pix IMO leaves a lot to be desired for day to day use.

Supposedly with the K1 Mk2, you have the ability to use Pixel shift hand held and with some motion in the subject. But very little has been written on that.

But anything is possible and Fuji does have a tendency to add things later on. Many felt that a form of pixel shift would follow on the X-H1, but it seems that X-trans is part of the issue. So if Fuji stays Bayer on the GFX2, then pixel shift might be a possibility for sure. Hopefully if Fuji does bring it to the table they work closely with Adobe so that a good raw solution is available. Adobe tends to do a one and done raw conversion unlike C1, which is why I held out hoping C1 would eventually support pixel shift for the K1.

Paul C

 

[vjbelle]

A little off topic but I hope is of use. Some have complained about manual focusing with the GFX and rightly so. I can with, a loupe, focus accurately 99% to 100% of the time. This is with and without peaking. But the LCD screen when used for accurate focusing at 100% pixels leaves a lot to be desired. I remember my first Canon with live view (5D ll) which had an LCD screen that was crisp and accurate at 100% pixels. A real joy to use for me. At the time I also had an IQ180 which I had to train myself to use live view for accurate focus. As any owners know it's not easy but doable. Then the 3100 came along with an LCD screen that is the best I have ever used. Unbelievable sharpness both in live view and for viewing a taken image. This allows for 2 ways to check for critical focus in the field. The GFX is nothing like this. Although worlds better than an IQ180 it is sadly much worse than a 3100 or my past 5D ll. During all of this time I also had a Nikon 800e and it's LCD screen never was the equal of the Canon 5D ll but, again, worlds beyond an IQ180. I would, from memory, put the Nikon LCD screen a few notches better than the GFX. The GFX also is very poor for viewing accuracy with a taken image on the LCD screen (at 100% pixels). To me it has some use but mostly I've had to train myself and don't really trust it for real accuracy.

So, with 100mp coming there will be lots of users who use this camera on a tripod with all sorts of lenses and will need a way to check for accurate focus. Is it too much to ask that if Phase and Canon can do it why can't Fuji?

Sorry for a little off topic.....

Victor

 

[Paul2660]

Hi Victor, and you have brought up a great point with the Fuji, and I have complained to them in writing several times.

What I believe is happening is that Fuji is over zooming, much like the way the Nikon D800 did and D810, 750 etc. The D850 is the first Nikon I have used that goes to a true 100%. The older Nikon's would go way out beyond a viewable limit and I always had to back the view down 3 times. Never did figure out how to get around that issue but I have been told there is a way to set it to stop where you want. Canon always has given just the 100% or correct view for resolution.

For Live View focus on the GFX, what I do is not double tap like on P1, (which I agree is very elegant in it's workability), but instead use my fingers to zoom into the view like you do on an iPad, iPhone etc. You will find that there is a spot where the image is very sharp and the high rez of the LCD starts to shine. But it's an arbitrary point, and it takes more time than just a quick 2x tap on the screen.

Play back is the same problem (and I use this more than Live View for manual focus), hit play, then double tap and the image displayed is way beyond a 100% real pixel view, again more like a 400% or 300% view. So again I just grow the screen with my fingers, about 1/2 of the amount a 2x tap goes. This shows a very sharp image similar to what you see on the IQ100 at 100%, but again not as easy and it's a non exact method. I just kinda of know how much now to go into the view.

The big difference for me, is the AF on the GFX. Unless you are shooting a very low contrast scene, the AF is quick and accurate, 100% right the first time. I love having multiple AF points, all of which to me are accurate across the frame.

What I do for my work, is I have a function button set for AF, and I leave the camera in MF. So once I hit my subject I know the camera will stay at that focus point, even if you power off the camera. (this was a big improvement over previous Fuji Focus by wire designs). With the joystick and function button, I can quickly locate a spot I want AF to use, hit it and then start my shoot.

The AF on the XF, I don't trust, never have. It's way to long, still reminds me of the older DF+. Again, I am sure many folks love the XF AF, I just find it very lacking. Even with the $850.00 upgrade, and seems to hunt a lot more. But worse it's just one AF point, and I don't want to have to move the camera to reset. For landscape work on the 3100, I just prefer LiveView, simple to move around once zoomed in to 100% and very accurate.

My GFX LCD now seems a bit dim, just may be my older eyes. In bright daylight the LCD even tilted can be hard to read, but the EVF is excellent.

Fuji never has had what I consider quality focus peaking. GFX is a bit better than say a X-T2, but still nothing like the peaking on a Sony A7FII, Nikon D850 (Nikon got it right the first time), or Pentax K1.

Paul C

 

[JohnBrew]

If it does have IBIS and pixel shift, it could take a bite out of other manufacturers multishot backs too, at presumably a substantially lower price point, depending on software support. Will be interesting to see what happens with the next GFX :watch:

Too true, digital technology is advancing faster and faster. Today's "must have it" cameras will be obsolete all too soon. What is announced today (or tomorrow ), if you can wait and avoid GAS, you just might have something available in six months which will provide all you need. However, I must say that all this technology has not replaced good technique and many (most?) pros are happy with what they have now.

 

[hcubell]

Hi Victor, and you have brought up a great point with the Fuji, and I have complained to them in writing several times.

What I believe is happening is that Fuji is over zooming, much like the way the Nikon D800 did and D810, 750 etc. The D850 is the first Nikon I have used that goes to a true 100%. The older Nikon's would go way out beyond a viewable limit and I always had to back the view down 3 times. Never did figure out how to get around that issue but I have been told there is a way to set it to stop where you want. Canon always has given just the 100% or correct view for resolution.

For Live View focus on the GFX, what I do is not double tap like on P1, (which I agree is very elegant in it's workability), but instead use my fingers to zoom into the view like you do on an iPad, iPhone etc. You will find that there is a spot where the image is very sharp and the high rez of the LCD starts to shine. But it's an arbitrary point, and it takes more time than just a quick 2x tap on the screen.

Play back is the same problem (and I use this more than Live View for manual focus), hit play, then double tap and the image displayed is way beyond a 100% real pixel view, again more like a 400% or 300% view. So again I just grow the screen with my fingers, about 1/2 of the amount a 2x tap goes. This shows a very sharp image similar to what you see on the IQ100 at 100%, but again not as easy and it's a non exact method. I just kinda of know how much now to go into the view.

The big difference for me, is the AF on the GFX. Unless you are shooting a very low contrast scene, the AF is quick and accurate, 100% right the first time. I love having multiple AF points, all of which to me are accurate across the frame.

What I do for my work, is I have a function button set for AF, and I leave the camera in MF. So once I hit my subject I know the camera will stay at that focus point, even if you power off the camera. (this was a big improvement over previous Fuji Focus by wire designs). With the joystick and function button, I can quickly locate a spot I want AF to use, hit it and then start my shoot.

The AF on the XF, I don't trust, never have. It's way to long, still reminds me of the older DF+. Again, I am sure many folks love the XF AF, I just find it very lacking. Even with the $850.00 upgrade, and seems to hunt a lot more. But worse it's just one AF point, and I don't want to have to move the camera to reset. For landscape work on the 3100, I just prefer LiveView, simple to move around once zoomed in to 100% and very accurate.

My GFX LCD now seems a bit dim, just may be my older eyes. In bright daylight the LCD even tilted can be hard to read, but the EVF is excellent.

Fuji never has had what I consider quality focus peaking. GFX is a bit better than say a X-T2, but still nothing like the peaking on a Sony A7FII, Nikon D850 (Nikon got it right the first time), or Pentax K1.

Paul C

With everything Fuji got so right with the GFX (and the lenses), the poor implementation of magnified Live View is mystifying. The EVF on the GFX is better spec'd than the X1D, and yet when I had a GFX I could not for the life of me set the focus precisely in magnified Live View. The magnified image in Live View was very coarse to the point that I could not tell when the exact focus snapped into place by moving the focus ring on the lens. With the X1D and the Sony A7RII, manual focus in magnified live view is just so good. I know I have raised this issue before. Amazing that Fuji has not fixed it by now. Of course, there are also things on the X1D that Hasselblad still hasn't fixed, like the lack of a live view histogram and Auto ISO in manual exposure mode.

 

[vjbelle]

Paul..... thanks for your experiences with regards to focus and playback. I agree that maximum focus zoom for focus is way beyond 100% pixels. I find that one step larger than minimum for the focus frame works very well for sharpness - for me. This is repeatable and may not be a true 100% pixels but it works.

For playback I find that looking at a raw file is useless. So, I use two cards with one dedicated to large jpg as its not possible to view a jpg when recorded to the same card as the raw - at least I haven't figured it out. I have sharpening set to 1 just to define edges a little more. For sure the maximum zoom is way beyond 100% pixels - as you pointed out. I find, again, that if I set the focus frame larger than the minimum size by 5 or 6 steps that I'm probably very close to 100% pixels and its repeatable. But..... still not as sharp as my 3100 but now I'm being picky.

Now don't roll your eyes when I say this:bugeyes: but I don't even use the EVF. I'm so used to using a loupe that I prefer it over the EVF - as good as it is. I keep it in my bag just in case but the camera is smaller with it not being mounted and I like that added benefit.

Thanks again for the tips.....

Victor

 

[Paul2660]

No eye rolling

The versatility of the EVF is a strong point for sure.

Shoot without it totally, or use the tilt adapter (which I do) which is great when shooting vertical on a tripod.

I still shoot raw + fine jpg all to one card. So far I have found that I can two finger zoom in to a spot where the image shows excellent sharpness. I have assumed I am viewing the in camera jpg when this is done but not sure. I also have the jpg sharpness set to 1.

Paul C

 

[Don Libby]

I've been doing a lot of manual focusing lately with both the 120 and 250 and after a little trial and error now have no issues. I've since begun MF using the 1.4 extender on the 250 along with the 45 macro tube with equal success as well as swapping the 18 and 45 on the 120. I'll admit I hated the MF in the beginning however now have learned to live with it and longer see it as an issue.