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

JK12

Member
I’m going to guess that the IBIS in the GFX100 will function much like my X-H1. That being the case, even when IBIS is turned off, it is still “powered up” when the camera is turned on - which positions the sensor accurately, and “holds it in place,” even though it won’t be moving to stabilize the image. Eg., you can’t clean the sensor with the camera turned off because the sensor will “move around.” So, you power up the camera but turn the IBIS off so that the sensor is “held still in place” for cleaning.

So, I suspect the answer to the orientation question is that with the camera on, it doesn’t matter which way the camera is pointed, re up, down, straight-down, etc., because the sensor is being “held in place” using it’s suspension system even if IBIS is not active. Hope that makes sense.

Rand
Thank you.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Same as IBIS from other makers! :grin:
Not *all* the other makers. In the Zx, Nikon has a mechanical locking mechanism that unlocks when the camera is turned on in IBIS mode. When The camera is off or when IBIS is not active, the mechanical lock engages.

Jim
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Not *all* the other makers. In the Zx, Nikon has a mechanical locking mechanism that unlocks when the camera is turned on in IBIS mode. When The camera is off or when IBIS is not active, the mechanical lock engages.

Jim

Thanks Jim. Sorry.
I only have experience with Olympus and Sony. :thumbs::thumbs:

Medium Format Talk https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1067
is not the same without you. I certainly miss your insightful and precise contributions.
Thanks for all the help you have given me. :clap:
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Thanks Jim. Sorry.
I certainly miss your insightful and precise contributions.
Thanks for all the help you have given me. :clap:
Thanks for the kind words. It's quite freeing to not feel I have to a) read every post on that forum, b) not correct statements that are objectively, verifiably wrong there, and not be drawn into what seem like endless, circular, acrid, logic-free, no-testing allowed, tribal discussions.

I'm looking forward to testing the GFX 100 soon, but I don't know when the camera will arrive. I started testing the 100-200/5.6, found it to be low-contrast, good for a zoom at the wider end, and a bit disappointing at the longer end. It is built to a price, though, and I think it's certainly worth the money, especially if you can get it on one of Fuji's $500-off sales.

For my personal work, I've been doing a lot of programming to create abstracts from GFX 50S/120 macro stacks:

flowersFused-84.jpg

Jim
 

hcubell

Well-known member
One thing that I was curious about with the GFX 100S is that it appears that Fuji has not "customized" the new 100MP Sony sensor in any way. Not sure why, but Fuji was very clear with the GFX 50S that it had customized the microlens array in the 50MP Sony sensor in ways that I don't understand, but it apparently increased the sharpness (or the appearance of added sharpness) of the files, possibly at the cost of some increase in moire. If Fuji and Hasselblad both use the exact same 100MP sensor, the playing field will be equalized so to speak in comparing lenses (assuming that neither one "cooks" the raw so you can't zero out any sharpening in the raw converter).
 

onasj

Active member
One thing that I was curious about with the GFX 100S is that it appears that Fuji has not "customized" the new 100MP Sony sensor in any way. Not sure why, but Fuji was very clear with the GFX 50S that it had customized the microlens array in the 50MP Sony sensor in ways that I don't understand, but it apparently increased the sharpness (or the appearance of added sharpness) of the files, possibly at the cost of some increase in moire. If Fuji and Hasselblad both use the exact same 100MP sensor, the playing field will be equalized so to speak in comparing lenses (assuming that neither one "cooks" the raw so you can't zero out any sharpening in the raw converter).
I believe the 100 MP sensor in the Hasselblad H6D-100c is the same FSI sensor in the 100 MP IQ3, and NOT the Sony BSI sensor in the GFX100. The only medium format BSI sensor cameras I'm aware of are:

- Fuji GFX100 (44x33 mm, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)
- Phase One IQ4 (53.4x40 mm, 150 MP, Sony's IMX411 sensor)
- Phase One iXM 100 MP (a drone camera, 44x33, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)

I'm sure someone will correct me if any of the above is incorrect :)
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I believe the 100 MP sensor in the Hasselblad H6D-100c is the same FSI sensor in the 100 MP IQ3, and NOT the Sony BSI sensor in the GFX100. The only medium format BSI sensor cameras I'm aware of are:

- Fuji GFX100 (44x33 mm, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)
- Phase One IQ4 (53.4x40 mm, 150 MP, Sony's IMX411 sensor)
- Phase One iXM 100 MP (a drone camera, 44x33, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)

I'm sure someone will correct me if any of the above is incorrect :)
I was referring to the new "cropped" MF Sony sensor in the GFX 100S that I assume Hasselblad will use in the successor to the X1D. I haven't read anything to suggest that Fuji customized that sensor for the GFX 100S, so that sensor as used in the GFX 100S and the X1D successor will be apparently the same.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I believe the 100 MP sensor in the Hasselblad H6D-100c is the same FSI sensor in the 100 MP IQ3, and NOT the Sony BSI sensor in the GFX100. The only medium format BSI sensor cameras I'm aware of are:

- Fuji GFX100 (44x33 mm, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)
- Phase One IQ4 (53.4x40 mm, 150 MP, Sony's IMX411 sensor)
- Phase One iXM 100 MP (a drone camera, 44x33, 100 MP, Sony's IMX461 sensor)

I'm sure someone will correct me if any of the above is incorrect :)
And the related IQ4 150mp Achromatic which uses a sensor essentially identical to the IQ4 150mp but without a bayer array.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Not sure why, but Fuji was very clear with the GFX 50S that it had customized the microlens array in the 50MP Sony sensor in ways that I don't understand, but it apparently increased the sharpness (or the appearance of added sharpness) of the files, possibly at the cost of some increase in moire.
The microlenses in the GFX 50x reduce the effective fill factor wrt the conventional nearly 100%. Brandon Dube explains by how much here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/discovering-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-microlens-size/

If the sampling aperture is reduced, the modulation transfer function at high spatial frequencies is increased. This means the images are sharper. As you said, it has the potential to increase moire. In the case of the microlenses, the amount of monochromatic moire is increased, but the amount of color moire remains relatively unaffected, since that mostly stems from the Bayer CFA, not the microlenses.

Jim
 

hcubell

Well-known member
The microlenses in the GFX 50x reduce the effective fill factor wrt the conventional nearly 100%. Brandon Dube explains by how much here:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/discovering-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-microlens-size/

If the sampling aperture is reduced, the modulation transfer function at high spatial frequencies is increased. This means the images are sharper. As you said, it has the potential to increase moire. In the case of the microlenses, the amount of monochromatic moire is increased, but the amount of color moire remains relatively unaffected, since that mostly stems from the Bayer CFA, not the microlenses.

Jim
Thanks. I wonder why Fuji had no need/desire to customize the microlenses in the new Sony 100MP sensor. Perhaps they were already optimized.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Thanks. I wonder why Fuji had no need/desire to customize the microlenses in the new Sony 100MP sensor. Perhaps they were already optimized.
Not sure what you mean by "optimized" in this context. Fill factor has always been a judgement call, balancing fine detail, aliasing, and quantum efficiency. I should point out here that if the GFX 100 effective fill factor is 100%, the pixel apertures will still be considerably smaller (if measured in um) that those of the GFX 50x.

In the link that I posted earlier, Brandon modeled the GFX 50S pixel aperture at 4.62 um. The pitch of the GFX 100 is 3.76 um.

Jim
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Not sure what you mean by "optimized" in this context. Fill factor has always been a judgement call, balancing fine detail, aliasing, and quantum efficiency. I should point out here that if the GFX 100 effective fill factor is 100%, the pixel apertures will still be considerably smaller (if measured in um) that those of the GFX 50x.

In the link that I posted earlier, Brandon modeled the GFX 50S pixel aperture at 4.62 um. The pitch of the GFX 100 is 3.76 um.

Jim
I gather that Fuji concluded that the microlenses on the old Sony 50MP sensor were not fully optimized in terms of the trade offs you describe. I recall that Fuji's technical papers about the GFX 50S talked at length about the changes made by Fuji in the sensor, and how the changes increased detail in the digital files. Now, Fuji is shifting to a new Sony sensor for the 100S, and I haven't read anything about Fuji customizing that sensor in any way. Of course, the old sony 50MP sensor was also used by Hasselblad, Phase and Pentax, and they never made changes to the microlenses.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
I gather that Fuji concluded that the microlenses on the old Sony 50MP sensor were not fully optimized in terms of the trade offs you describe. I recall that Fuji's technical papers about the GFX 50S talked at length about the changes made by Fuji in the sensor, and how the changes increased detail in the digital files. Now, Fuji is shifting to a new Sony sensor for the 100S, and I haven't read anything about Fuji customizing that sensor in any way. Of course, the old sony 50MP sensor was also used by Hasselblad, Phase and Pentax, and they never made changes to the microlenses.
You talk about the optimization of the pixel aperture as if there were some global optimum that the designers are trying to find. The optimum pixel aperture depends heavily on the use case and the desires of the photographer. There isn't one such optimum. All the camera manufacturers can do is provide whatever compromise they think is acceptable for most of their customers, most of the time. Until the GFX 50x, manufacturers have recently been prioritizing quantum efficiency.

Jim
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
You talk about the optimization of the pixel aperture as if there were some global optimum that the designers are trying to find. The optimum pixel aperture depends heavily on the use case and the desires of the photographer. There isn't one such optimum. All the camera manufacturers can do is provide whatever compromise they think is acceptable for most of their customers, most of the time. Until the GFX 50x, manufacturers have recently been prioritizing quantum efficiency.

Jim

Yes, I think that quantum efficiency is exactly what photographers have been desiring.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Yes, I think that quantum efficiency is exactly what photographers have been desiring.
Yes, but it's not the only important thing. One effect of making the microlenses smaller in the GFX 50x was to reduce color filter array (CFA) crosstalk. It occurs to me now that the switch to BSI may have caused the Fuji engineers to make the lenses bigger if CFA crosstalk was on their minds when they made the GFX 50x decision. It is not a necessary condition, but going to BSI allows the microlenses to be made thinner. Sony has been taking advantage of that in their full-frame BSI sensors. Making the microlenses thinner in conjunction with BSI construction reduces CFA crosstalk. Possible the Fuji engineers decided that they didn't need the small microlenses to get CFA crosstalk to acceptable levels.

As an aside I should point out that CFA crosstalk has long been a problem with FSI sensors on tech cameras with short symmetric lenses. For clarity, let me say that when I say small or large wrt the microlenses, I'm talking about as viewed from in front of the camera. When I say thin, I'm talking about as viewed along a line parallel to the sensor surface.

Jim
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
Now if I could just figure out what quantum efficiency is and how it makes me a better photographer at the non-quantum level.
A sensor with high quantum efficiency needs less light for the same signal on the chip. That means you can stop down a bit or increase shutter speed a tad with the same amount of noise in the captured image. The effects we are talking about are fractions of an f-stop.
 
A sensor with high quantum efficiency needs less light for the same signal on the chip. That means you can stop down a bit or increase shutter speed a tad with the same amount of noise in the captured image. The effects we are talking about are fractions of an f-stop.
I am all for energy efficiency in general, but this doesn't seem to be any practical difference. Nice to have, but certainly no reason to buy a new camera, much less change systems.
 

JimKasson

Well-known member
I am all for energy efficiency in general, but this doesn't seem to be any practical difference. Nice to have, but certainly no reason to buy a new camera, much less change systems.
I don't think that anyone is saying that increased effective sensitivity is a reason to buy a new camera. In some situations -- like the studio, or outside in good light -- it's not an advantage at all.

Jim
 
Top