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!

Fuji GFX 100

gerald.d

Well-known member
But alas not with tethered camera controls. Imperative for architectural photographers, for whom this camera would otherwise be perfect. So close....
It states here that the GFX50S/R are supported for both tethering and live view.

What makes you think the GFX100 won't be supported?

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Roger

Thanks for your post . Can you please supply a link ? ? ?
www.diglloyd.com .....but its a subscription service and expensive ..you might find info in his blog posts about GFX but the illustrations will be behind his paywall . His commentary is hard to accept ...he is much too opinionated and can only apply his results to his quest for maximum image quality ....BUT ....he finds things that most review sites gloss over .
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
It states here that the GFX50S/R are supported for both tethering and live view.

What makes you think the GFX100 won't be supported?

Kind regards,


Gerald.
My 50s does not support live view when tethered. There have been discussions regarding this and the onus is on Fuji to supply either C1 or Adobe with protocols for supporting those functions.

Victor
 

Owen

Member
It states here that the GFX50S/R are supported for both tethering and live view.

What makes you think the GFX100 won't be supported?

Kind regards,


Gerald.
Unfortunately only partially. The only variable that can be adjusted is aperture, so no shutter speed or ISO control, no bracketing, live view that cancels the ability to trigger the shutter. Not much use for professional architecture or interiors. From what I understand it’s a firmware issue on Fuji’s side, not the fault of the C1 team.
 

Gerd

Active member
www.diglloyd.com .....but its a subscription service and expensive ..you might find info in his blog posts about GFX but the illustrations will be behind his paywall . His commentary is hard to accept ...he is much too opinionated and can only apply his results to his quest for maximum image quality ....BUT ....he finds things that most review sites gloss over .

I've rarely read such a nonsense. The Fuji G 23mm F4 is outstanding. I would like to know which 35mm lens / camera gives far superior results, especially in the border areas (I laugh myself to death) - as described by diglloyd.

I can judge myself and make comparisons, since I have the GFX50s and IQ3 / IQ4 with various lenses.

The GFX is not all gold was glitters, the camera also has bugs and their problems - but what diglloyd has written does not correspond to reality.

Greeting Gerd
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
With regards to the GFX 23mm Chambers loved it in numerous blogs and then recently called the performance of that lens not capable of keeping up with a 50MP sensor........ now that's consistency!! All of this is easily searchable and not a part of his subscription service.

Victor
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I've rarely read such a nonsense. The Fuji G 23mm F4 is outstanding. I would like to know which 35mm lens / camera gives far superior results, especially in the border areas (I laugh myself to death) - as described by diglloyd.

I can judge myself and make comparisons, since I have the GFX50s and IQ3 / IQ4 with various lenses.

The GFX is not all gold was glitters, the camera also has bugs and their problems - but what diglloyd has written does not correspond to reality.

Greeting Gerd
You obviously don t have subscription and therefore have not looked closely at the test photographs . Without testing with a specific objective in mind ..you only know that the results satisfy you . Fine for you but not nonsense or invalid .

I read his tests in detail and do not base anything of my conclusions on his “click bait “ blog posts .

Lets look specifically at the 23 GFX lens and his findings since you brought it up . His question is how will the 23 GFX lens perform on the next generation 100MP sensor . I consider the following to be as factual as it gets in lens testing .

1. The 23 relies on in camera profiling that reduces both distortion and aberrations . (FACT ) .

2. The in camera profiles when applied reduce the micro contrast in the corners (FACT ) a simple test of the files without profiles (only possible by avoiding LR ) compared side by side with the adjusted file . It has very little effect on edge contrast and can be seen primarily in the detail . You may not see it and you may also conclude its not important.

3. Files produced from a 100MP sensor show flaws that are not apparent at 50MP .

His point is that lenses relying on corrections in post processing may not be good enough when used on a 100MP camera .

IMHO its a valid concern if you plan on using the 23 on the 100mp GFX . You are correct in that most if not all MF wide angles rely on distortion corrections in post processing . So will the 23 be an excellent choice for the GFX 100 ....I think depends on the photographers specific requirements ....but you know what to look for ...
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
With regards to the GFX 23mm Chambers loved it in numerous blogs and then recently called the performance of that lens not capable of keeping up with a 50MP sensor........ now that's consistency!! All of this is easily searchable and not a part of his subscription service.

Victor
You are correct ..his conclusions are all over the place . However if you read the test reports and you could understand the basis for his conclusions .......

He believes the loss of micro contrast caused by the post processing adjustments should be considered unacceptable by those seeking the maximum image quality possible from a given sensor . (and if you can see it at 50MP you will easily notice it at 100MP)

Based on the 5omP examples I can see the effect but do not believe it would be sufficient to keep me from the otherwise stellar image quality of the 23.

IMHO I think the trend toward more stiching (from longer lenses with minimum distortion ) and focus stacking to gain viable DOF will be needed by landscape photographers to produce maximum image quality from 100mp+ sensors.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
He believes the loss of micro contrast caused by the post processing adjustments should be considered unacceptable by those seeking the maximum image quality possible from a given sensor . (and if you can see it at 50MP you will easily notice it at 100MP)
The softening of the distortion corrections are a function of the sampling frequency, so I would expect the effect at 1.4x the sampling frequency would be about the same at a pixel level, and less at the same print size.

Jim
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
You are correct ..his conclusions are all over the place . However if you read the test reports and you could understand the basis for his conclusions .......

He believes the loss of micro contrast caused by the post processing adjustments should be considered unacceptable by those seeking the maximum image quality possible from a given sensor . (and if you can see it at 50MP you will easily notice it at 100MP)

Based on the 5omP examples I can see the effect but do not believe it would be sufficient to keep me from the otherwise stellar image quality of the 23.

IMHO I think the trend toward more stiching (from longer lenses with minimum distortion ) and focus stacking to gain viable DOF will be needed by landscape photographers to produce maximum image quality from 100mp+ sensors.
Any lens that has to go through 'corrective' stages in post is bound to lose some quality. That's one of the reasons I stay away from most of the wides and the main reason I have kept my Schneider 35XL. But another issue I have in general with all lens testing is that the particular test is for a particular lens. That lens may be a great or not so great sample. Skewing is a major example of sample variation as it can appear in one copy and not the other. Focus shift is just the opposite as it is a design issue and if found in one sample will be in all samples. So it's best to beware of lens tests and know how to test for yourself.

Victor

Edit: I totally agree with your last sentence as I almost always use longer lenses stitched in portrait for landscape and have found focus stacking invaluable for DOF.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
though the monster SL-50mm summilux, which apparently needs major corrections in camera still has gorgeous quality
This is an example of where DL hurts his credibility because his applies on his requirements to his lens tests . (This does not make his findings wrong but he frequently misses the intend of the lens designer in his conclusions ).

Full disclosure ....I am a huge Leica Fan Boy , I completely trust Peter Karbe the head of Leica s lens design . He would not produce a lens without it performing as he designed it . In addition I own the 50/1.4 SL as well as almost a dozen Leica standard lenses (M,S,SL) so I can view side by side files on my 5K iMac .

The 50/1.4 Sl was clearly designed for fashion portraiture work . The lens is designed to be used at wide apertures and to produce a beautiful aesthetic (bokeh ,tone separation ,color etc) . The edges rarely matter and even better if they appear smooth ..its the micro contrast in the central 50% of the frame that matters and the 50 1.4 SL excels in this .

It would not be a lens I would choose for high image quality landscape unless I wanted the aesthetic produced .

DL clearly shows this behind his paywall as does Sean Reid . He finds the lens unacceptable for landscape (if you require maximum image quality edge to edge ) but the very best lens for portraiture he has ever used.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I am catching some serious criticism for my use of DL tests . Your loss .

My original post was just a heads up that adapted lenses MAY not work all that well on the Fuji GFX cameras . The test I referred to was using a 50/2 Zeiss MILVUS ..know as a very sharp lenses with a very flat plan of focus . I know on the HB X1D that Peter Coulson (may have spelled it wrong ) has used successfully the OTUS lenses for his fashion work ..they cover the full 33x44 sensor ,have a very flat plan of focus and are promoted by Zeiss as their best ever lenses . So my interest was peaked about using the same OTUS lenses on a GFX body (adapters exist ) .

The findings at DL clearly showed that ,at least with the 50/2 Milvus , the results were poor . (This is not a poor sample as its a reference lens DL uses to test cameras ) . Speculation only ........there is something about the sensor glass on the GFX bodies that is inconsistent with the adapted lens. For Sony bodies Zeiss modified their lens formulas to include the sensor glass .

I felt this was good to know IF YOU PLANNED TO USE ADAPTED LENSES ONLY ...

I found this a very important consideration as I quite like the rendering of the Zeiss OTUS lenses and since they appear to cover 33x44 ..they could find there way into my kit at some point in the future .
 

Phase V

Member
I am catching some serious criticism for my use of DL tests . Your loss .

My original post was just a heads up that adapted lenses MAY not work all that well on the Fuji GFX cameras . The test I referred to was using a 50/2 Zeiss MILVUS ..know as a very sharp lenses with a very flat plan of focus . I know on the HB X1D that Peter Coulson (may have spelled it wrong ) has used successfully the OTUS lenses for his fashion work ..they cover the full 33x44 sensor ,have a very flat plan of focus and are promoted by Zeiss as their best ever lenses . So my interest was peaked about using the same OTUS lenses on a GFX body (adapters exist ) .

The findings at DL clearly showed that ,at least with the 50/2 Milvus , the results were poor . (This is not a poor sample as its a reference lens DL uses to test cameras ) . Speculation only ........there is something about the sensor glass on the GFX bodies that is inconsistent with the adapted lens. For Sony bodies Zeiss modified their lens formulas to include the sensor glass .

I felt this was good to know IF YOU PLANNED TO USE ADAPTED LENSES ONLY ...

I found this a very important consideration as I quite like the rendering of the Zeiss OTUS lenses and since they appear to cover 33x44 ..they could find there way into my kit at some point in the future .
If i remember correctly Fuji uses a wider gap between the sensor and sensor glass to minimize the visibility of dust on the sensor glass. That could be a problem
for lenses not taking care of it.
 

D&A

Well-known member
As an outsider looking in....since at present the IBIS cannot be used simultaneously with IS turned on in their stabilized lenses, I assume most will choose IBIS in such situations? additionally if they eventually through firmware allow both IBIS and lens stabilization work together, 1ould there be any advantage to using IBIS alone?

Dave (D&A)
 
Top