David Schneider
New member
On the Fuji GFX side, OP forgot to mention the ease of use of other brand lenses with an adapter. Also, GFX has the 32-64 and soon to be released 100-200mm and a prices for zoom lenses are quite reasonable.
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!
"small" medium format choices - Leica vs Hasselblad vs Fuji
- Thread starter Paratom
- Start date
The GFX files are very malleable, and can be processed any way the author wants.
or in C1, one could simply choose Base Characteristics > Curve > Linear Response and make the files look totally flat like they were shot on RED raw
but to each his own.
or in C1, one could simply choose Base Characteristics > Curve > Linear Response and make the files look totally flat like they were shot on RED raw
but to each his own.
Shashin
Well-known member
I think it might simply be the photographer. I have seen no particular attribute stand out among those brands/cameras. There are certainly images posted here with Fuji cameras that are detailed, silky, without excessive micro contrast. And the opposite with Leica/Hasselblad.
jerome_m
Member
There is also a difference in colours between the 3 manufacturers. I know that people here will argue that one can calibrate the cameras to look the same, but of course the images we see on the Internet are not necessarily calibrated in that way. Fuji, in particular, includes "Fujifilm" profiles which are frequently used on Internet sample pictures. So what you see as difference in lenses may (or may not, I don't know) actually be a difference in colour profiles. It is very difficult not to be influenced by colour when evaluating the way a lens draws.
vieri
Well-known member
On the image quality issue, I think that there are differences between each camera / lens combinations in digital MF toady, of course, and - as many have noted - in the way cameras interpret colours. I am talking Fuji GFX, Hasselblad X1D and Leica S (007) here, cameras I either tried for a couple of weeks (Fuji) or owned and used for a longer time. I also owned and used for a couple of years Pentax 645Z (and the D before that)
At this point in the development of digital MF, I think that IQ is fine with pretty much any system; modern MF lenses are pretty good and enough for most uses in every system (with some small exception); for me, the reasons to choose a system vs another have shifted (or are shifting, but I believe that most definitely will shift) from IQ to different parameters. For the work I do, I need:
- Lenses from WA and ultra-WA, up to 120-135mm (MF) at the most;
- Lenses easy to filter with my 100mm square filter system;
- Long exposures: I regularly make exposures up to 8-10 minutes, sometimes longer. I need: clean files, good UI implementation of LE, preferably no LENR;
- EVF, because it makes it an order of magnitude easier to use filters in the field. It takes away the need to remove the holder to see, frame, focus, in daylight with filters up to 10 stop ND, and around and before sunrise / after sunset when the light is low. EVF with diopter correction, because I wear glasses and with diopter correction I can easily adjust the EVF so I can see both the "real world" and the image in the EVF without having to take off and replace my glasses. Incidentally, this is why LCD don't work for me
- AF points covering as much of the frame as possible and easily moveable, since working on a tripod the "focus and recompose" bit becomes a bit tedious;
- Possibility to decouple shutter button and AF actuation, since if the camera tries to AF when I have 10 stop of ND in front of the lens, that will result in a huge mess;
- I don't want cable releases, I want delayed shutter since not opening a port on the camera body, in the environments I work in, is a huge plus;
- I prefer no mirror, but if I had to use a mirror-with camera I'd need a well-implemented, easy to activate, mirror-up feature;
- I need dual cards, and prefer them to be the same type of card for convenience;
- An "Essential" user interface, the simpler the better; i.e., touch screens are great to use with gloves and / or frozen hands vs button / turn wheels; if buttons, few and larger are better than many and small; and so on;
- A system that is simple to setup and use, again due to the need to do that in snow, wind, sand, etc.;
- I hike, so the smaller and lighter, both for camera and lenses, the better;
- Weather-resistant cameras and lenses are a must
I don't need:
- Machine gun frame rate;
- Speedy AF;
- Speedy card writing performance;
and all sport-oriented features, etc.
So, for my use the image quality of the X1D and Fuji GFX would have been both perfectly fine. What made me go for one vs the other is the rest. The Leica S is obviously out (no long exposures is enough). Tech cameras are out (too fiddly in the field, no weather resistance). Phase is out (too big and heavy, no weather resistance). Pentax 645Z is out (too big and heavy, not enough modern lenses, old lenses often sub-par for the 50 MP sensor). So that leave the GFX and X1D, for me. Between then two, I much preferred the X1D for landscape-oriented features, UI, size, weight, wider WA.
Of course, your own reasons to choose a system might be different, and therefore your resulting camera system of choice will be different than mine.
I think that, as we progress forward, we will choose camera system more and more according to other things than IQ, since IQ will be there with most of them. Manufacturer seems to start taking notice, and if they haven't, I sure hope they will.
Again, just my .02. Best regards,
Vieri
At this point in the development of digital MF, I think that IQ is fine with pretty much any system; modern MF lenses are pretty good and enough for most uses in every system (with some small exception); for me, the reasons to choose a system vs another have shifted (or are shifting, but I believe that most definitely will shift) from IQ to different parameters. For the work I do, I need:
- Lenses from WA and ultra-WA, up to 120-135mm (MF) at the most;
- Lenses easy to filter with my 100mm square filter system;
- Long exposures: I regularly make exposures up to 8-10 minutes, sometimes longer. I need: clean files, good UI implementation of LE, preferably no LENR;
- EVF, because it makes it an order of magnitude easier to use filters in the field. It takes away the need to remove the holder to see, frame, focus, in daylight with filters up to 10 stop ND, and around and before sunrise / after sunset when the light is low. EVF with diopter correction, because I wear glasses and with diopter correction I can easily adjust the EVF so I can see both the "real world" and the image in the EVF without having to take off and replace my glasses. Incidentally, this is why LCD don't work for me
- AF points covering as much of the frame as possible and easily moveable, since working on a tripod the "focus and recompose" bit becomes a bit tedious;
- Possibility to decouple shutter button and AF actuation, since if the camera tries to AF when I have 10 stop of ND in front of the lens, that will result in a huge mess;
- I don't want cable releases, I want delayed shutter since not opening a port on the camera body, in the environments I work in, is a huge plus;
- I prefer no mirror, but if I had to use a mirror-with camera I'd need a well-implemented, easy to activate, mirror-up feature;
- I need dual cards, and prefer them to be the same type of card for convenience;
- An "Essential" user interface, the simpler the better; i.e., touch screens are great to use with gloves and / or frozen hands vs button / turn wheels; if buttons, few and larger are better than many and small; and so on;
- A system that is simple to setup and use, again due to the need to do that in snow, wind, sand, etc.;
- I hike, so the smaller and lighter, both for camera and lenses, the better;
- Weather-resistant cameras and lenses are a must
I don't need:
- Machine gun frame rate;
- Speedy AF;
- Speedy card writing performance;
and all sport-oriented features, etc.
So, for my use the image quality of the X1D and Fuji GFX would have been both perfectly fine. What made me go for one vs the other is the rest. The Leica S is obviously out (no long exposures is enough). Tech cameras are out (too fiddly in the field, no weather resistance). Phase is out (too big and heavy, no weather resistance). Pentax 645Z is out (too big and heavy, not enough modern lenses, old lenses often sub-par for the 50 MP sensor). So that leave the GFX and X1D, for me. Between then two, I much preferred the X1D for landscape-oriented features, UI, size, weight, wider WA.
Of course, your own reasons to choose a system might be different, and therefore your resulting camera system of choice will be different than mine.
I think that, as we progress forward, we will choose camera system more and more according to other things than IQ, since IQ will be there with most of them. Manufacturer seems to start taking notice, and if they haven't, I sure hope they will.
Again, just my .02. Best regards,
Vieri
Actually with the GFX, the user already has several options wider than 23 mm focal length:
Canon TSE 17f4 + adapter (Techart, Fringer, Steel, Kipon ...)
Canon TSE 24f3.5 + adapter
Both have larger image circle than 44x33 requires and allow a certain amount of shift movements which stitched result in wider fov.
The 17 TSE allows 2/3 mm hor/vert shift within sharp image circle and 11/12 mm within total image circle.
The 24 TSE allows 4/5 mm hor/vert shift within sharp image circle and 12/12 mm within total image circle.
These two lenses also are wide angle options for the 1XD (via adapter) but the big advantage of the GFX is the integrated mechanical shutter. I hardly ever use the electronical shutter due it'e slow read out time, too often I had moving objects which were heavily distorted.
Soon the Laowa 17f4 lens shall be released which is expected to be a nice manual focus super wide angle lens for the Fuji GF system.
Canon TSE 17f4 + adapter (Techart, Fringer, Steel, Kipon ...)
Canon TSE 24f3.5 + adapter
Both have larger image circle than 44x33 requires and allow a certain amount of shift movements which stitched result in wider fov.
The 17 TSE allows 2/3 mm hor/vert shift within sharp image circle and 11/12 mm within total image circle.
The 24 TSE allows 4/5 mm hor/vert shift within sharp image circle and 12/12 mm within total image circle.
These two lenses also are wide angle options for the 1XD (via adapter) but the big advantage of the GFX is the integrated mechanical shutter. I hardly ever use the electronical shutter due it'e slow read out time, too often I had moving objects which were heavily distorted.
Soon the Laowa 17f4 lens shall be released which is expected to be a nice manual focus super wide angle lens for the Fuji GF system.
vieri
Well-known member
That is also true with the X1D, Teachart adapter, for all the lenses you mentioned bar the Laowa 17mm f/4 which has a dedicated GFX mount
Best regards,
Vieri
Christopher
Active member
But only while using the e-shutter.
vieri
Well-known member
Indeed, which may or may not be enough for your intended application. For mine, landscape photography, it most definitely is
Best regards,
Vieri
I still haven't tried the X1D, because there is no local (stocking) dealer. Out of the other two, I much prefer the S to the Fuji.
The S is faster, more responsive (not the same thing), has a much better viewfinder, has a much better grip (I often shoot all day), has amazing battery life, has an intuitive interface that can be used with gloves, and the lenses are amazing at every aperture and distance. I can also shoot through a storm with just a wipe-down once the weather clears.
I tried the Fuji, and it is not for me. The VF is very low-res, there are small buttons on every surface, it is very hard to focus manually quickly, and the shape is all wrong for my hands.
As you can tell from other replies, what matters to me is irrelevant to others, and vice versa. On-tripod performance isn't very important, zoom-focus is too slow for the type of subjects that I photograph, and AF is something that gets in the way. I only use the AF button on the S to go quickly from near to far, never for fine focus.
mristuccia
Well-known member
No I don't own any of these systems, unfortunately. My feeling is based on what I see posted here and on other forums.
However I own a Fujifilm X-T2, and I notice the same thing when I use a Leica Summicron (adapted) in comparison to the Fujicrons (aka the f2 Fuji prime lenses).
As I said, it is only a subjective feeling. Didn't want to make a serious technical comparison here. All three systems are of course able to produce exceptional images. It's only a matter of personal taste, and feelings.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I have little stick in this game since I've never owned any of them. My impressions, though:
No immediate plans to buy anything at all, but an X1D body and a 21mm lens plus a V to X1D mount adapter remain an interest.
I have no worries about image quality with any of these cameras. I also have very little need for speed, autofocus, or massive piles of lens adaptability ... or massive piles of lenses. They're niche use for me: An X1D kit with 21mm and Macro 120mm lenses would be fine. It would spend 90% of its time with the 21mm lens glued to the lens mount and set to square format capture, and the rest of the time doing copy work with the macro lens.
fun fun fun,
G
- I've never considered a Leica S ... too expensive for me, particularly on lenses. And too large and heavy.
- I've also not considered a Fuji GFX, although the new R version is interesting. I've had Fuji medium format film cameras before and there's just something about them that always, ultimately, makes me resist using them.
- I wasn't considering MFD at all until I handled the X1D. I've had Hasselblad V film equipment over the past decade or two and always liked it, still have a fairly complete V system. The X1D is as large a camera as I'd ever want to carry, the ergonomics fit my hands well, but I'd signed off from my initial interest in this camera because, well, I only rarely want to carry anything that big nowadays. I generally trust Hasselblad's lenses to do please me. HOWEVER, now that they've implemented the electronic shutter and have an adapter for V system lenses to use on the X1D, AND have released the 21mm lens, I'm tempted again.
No immediate plans to buy anything at all, but an X1D body and a 21mm lens plus a V to X1D mount adapter remain an interest.
I have no worries about image quality with any of these cameras. I also have very little need for speed, autofocus, or massive piles of lens adaptability ... or massive piles of lenses. They're niche use for me: An X1D kit with 21mm and Macro 120mm lenses would be fine. It would spend 90% of its time with the 21mm lens glued to the lens mount and set to square format capture, and the rest of the time doing copy work with the macro lens.
fun fun fun,
G
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
With regard to color, that depends more on the color profiles used than on the camera. Fuji, as an example has a lot of film emulations for it's cameras.
Other:
X1D and GFX will use the sensor for AF. The Leica S will use a separate sensor with an optical pass over two moving mirrors. Which will be more accurate?
Yes, an optical viewfinder can be nice, but try to take pictures in a dark place. A good electronic viewfinder comes to live.
Moving the mirror and the shutter are potential causes of vibration. Neither the GFX or the X1D camera body has any moving parts. Except the shutter on the Fuji GFX. But using electronic first curtain will by and large eliminate vibrations from the shutter.
Fuji will be available with 100MP and in body image stabilisation in a few months.
I will buy neither, but I would be pretty sure that the Fuji GFX system is the one having the brightest future.
If you are shooting in studio, or with strobes outdoors, you may prefer a camera having leaf shutter.
Best regards
Erik
With regard to color, that depends more on the color profiles used than on the camera. Fuji, as an example has a lot of film emulations for it's cameras.
Other:
X1D and GFX will use the sensor for AF. The Leica S will use a separate sensor with an optical pass over two moving mirrors. Which will be more accurate?
Yes, an optical viewfinder can be nice, but try to take pictures in a dark place. A good electronic viewfinder comes to live.
Moving the mirror and the shutter are potential causes of vibration. Neither the GFX or the X1D camera body has any moving parts. Except the shutter on the Fuji GFX. But using electronic first curtain will by and large eliminate vibrations from the shutter.
Fuji will be available with 100MP and in body image stabilisation in a few months.
I will buy neither, but I would be pretty sure that the Fuji GFX system is the one having the brightest future.
If you are shooting in studio, or with strobes outdoors, you may prefer a camera having leaf shutter.
Best regards
Erik
Over the last days I shot comparisons between the systems. My feeling is that at least the default settings in LR look like there is more sharpening and contrast in the Fujifiles. I dont know how much is post processing and how much lenses since I have not spend enough time with Fuji.
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118944.0
Quote:
“
WRT sharpness, the GFX is sharper than you'd expect a 33x44mm sensor with a 5.3 um pitch to be. The reason is the small micro lenses.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/discovering-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-microlens-size/
My copy of the 32-64 is the sharpest zoom I've used. It has low LoCA, fairly low focus shift, and is not far from parfocality:
http://blog.kasson.com/?s=32-64
It's not quite the equal of the 63/2.8 at the apertures the two lenses have in common, but it's close.
“
thompsonkirk
Member
"Over the last days I shot comparisons between the systems. My feeling is that at least the default settings in LR look like there is more sharpening and contrast in the Fujifiles. I dont know how much is post processing and how much lenses since I have not spend enough time with Fuji." – Paratom
That's the result I'd expect. But it's quickly mitigated by switching to the Astia camera profile or making a custom profile with Color Checker; turning off default sharpening; and then clicking 'Save new camera raw defaults.'
Kirk
PS re: the LuLa link: Kasson and his antagonist are arguing over how the GFX system (sensor and lenses) achieve a 'clinical' sort of sharpness – whereas Marco and I, and perhaps others, have been wondering how to mitigate it. It's the old issue of maximum resolution versus other visual values. In this vein, Leica users used to prefer Mandler or Karbe lens designs. Now it seems that some of us value Fuji IQ for its high or perhaps exaggerated resolution, and some want to reduce its 'edginess.' IMO the truth is that the files will be fine from all three systems under consideration, and you can choose lenses and then post-process the files to match your personal values/taste.
K
That's the result I'd expect. But it's quickly mitigated by switching to the Astia camera profile or making a custom profile with Color Checker; turning off default sharpening; and then clicking 'Save new camera raw defaults.'
Kirk
PS re: the LuLa link: Kasson and his antagonist are arguing over how the GFX system (sensor and lenses) achieve a 'clinical' sort of sharpness – whereas Marco and I, and perhaps others, have been wondering how to mitigate it. It's the old issue of maximum resolution versus other visual values. In this vein, Leica users used to prefer Mandler or Karbe lens designs. Now it seems that some of us value Fuji IQ for its high or perhaps exaggerated resolution, and some want to reduce its 'edginess.' IMO the truth is that the files will be fine from all three systems under consideration, and you can choose lenses and then post-process the files to match your personal values/taste.
K
Last edited:
In LR the Fuji profile "pro neg stand" seems the one which is closest to the look of the adobe .
Leica S and SL profiles.
The x1d in LR looks overall more saturated and with less red than both Leica and Fuji, overall Fuji looks slightly on the red side in my eyes.
I gave up on color checker long time ago since I always felt what looked good in one sort of light looked wrong in different light and my custom profiles never were really flexible.
I am sure everything can be adjusted.
For people using cameras with different sensor size its an advantage if those cameras and profiles go in the same direction.
What I mean - its probably to use Leica S side by side with SL/ or CL , or to use Fuji gfx together with Fuji x-pro.
by the way - taking comparison shots between those options I also included the Sl+50/1.4SL lens.
One can see the difference but its surprising how this lens on the SL holds up to the small medium format cameras.
Its big but its a freaking good lens IMO. And the viewfinder of the SL as well as the responsiveness of shutter release are impressive. Anyways it is not medium format so sorry for off topic post.
One can see the difference but its surprising how this lens on the SL holds up to the small medium format cameras.
Its big but its a freaking good lens IMO. And the viewfinder of the SL as well as the responsiveness of shutter release are impressive. Anyways it is not medium format so sorry for off topic post.
PeterA
Well-known member
This thread is all about people's 'feelings' - don't spoil the vibe with good advice .:lecture: