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

DougDolde

Well-known member
There is a lot of talk about sticking it on the back of a tech cam via the Alpa adapter or some other piece of hardware.

I just don't get why anyone would do this. If you want a tech cam get a dedicated modular back, P1 or Leaf
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
There is a lot of talk about sticking it on the back of a tech cam via the Alpa adapter or some other piece of hardware.

I just don't get why anyone would do this. If you want a tech cam get a dedicated modular back, P1 or Leaf
I accept that you don't get it, but as one who uses both a tech cam (Cambo WDS) and a view camera (Toyo VX23D) with an A7R body instead of a dedicated back -- and happily so, I might add! -- I have to say it makes perfect sense to me. :D
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
There is a lot of talk about sticking it on the back of a tech cam via the Alpa adapter or some other piece of hardware.

I just don't get why anyone would do this. If you want a tech cam get a dedicated modular back, P1 or Leaf
pretty simple really, not that hard of a concept to grasp. Obviously they want to use it as a normal system some of the time, as well as the flexibility of using it on a tech. Pretty much like many of us do with a full Phase XF system and glass as well as a tech camera to use the DB on. I use the tech setup when I can, but if it’s windy or shooting in sketchy conditions (rain, surf, waterfall mist) I stay with the XF. Also if I need to work fast because of the circumstances, I’ll opt for the XF, with the 40-80 zoom.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I specialize in shooting interiors. I do not have the luxury of choosing what season, or even what time of day that I do this. My clients want window views. Imagine shooting the inside of a massive cave so that it is brightly exposed inside. Now imagine getting the view outside of the tiny entrance properly exposed in the same photo. On a hot summer day. That is most homes. (Most rooms will not have an unobstructed window on more than one wall.)

To make this happen involves HDR (technically exposure fusion) and several flash frames. The HDR is crushed nearly 100% both in highlights and shadows. The flash frames are blended to achieve a reasonable window exposure. All of this is often still not enough to get a pleasant view outside.

My typical commission might involve 10-15 such images, but I've previously shot volume HDR and had to process ~120 HDRs per night. The prospect of approaching a useful level of DR in one frame becomes almost sexual under this circumstance.

Even when shooting exteriors, front facades immersed in shadow or the areas beneath any overhang must be perfectly exposed--while maintaining a blue sky. Although this is much easier to achieve in post than window views.

My point is certain genres, at least mine, must absolutely use every milli-stop of DR we can squeeze out. I will test 16-bit files with the GFX100, but I'm not expecting any noticeable difference.
I like your second image. :thumbup:
The first one looks way to light for my eyes. :facesmack:
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Thought it would be better to bump this thread than start a new one.

Fuji have confirmed that pixel shift will be coming to the GFX 100 in a future firmware update, resulting in 400MP files.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Thought it would be better to bump this thread than start a new one.

Fuji have confirmed that pixel shift will be coming to the GFX 100 in a future firmware update, resulting in 400MP files.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
Gerald,

Thank you. :thumbup: I was going to post something snarky about needing more pixels, but really, there's not a lot about the camera I would change. I suppose they could add frame averaging.

Matt
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Gerald,

Thank you. :thumbup: I was going to post something snarky about needing more pixels, but really, there's not a lot about the camera I would change. I suppose they could add frame averaging.

Matt
Frame averaging is an awesome capability on the IQ4150 - not perfect but it really does open up image quality improvements and long exposure options too in camera. It would be a fantastic addition if Fuji could add that too in the future. I basically retired my NDs for my Actus/IQ4150 kit. I'd love to do that with the GFX100 too.

Now if we could have a mode that combined pixel shift AND automated frame averaging ... :watch:
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
Pixel shift I believe would add both higher resolution and the cleaner look of the frame averaging shots from the 4150.

On the K1, Pentax, the pixel shift images were considerably cleaner, and gave the higher ISO ranges a vastly superior look. This is on the old K1, not the 2nd version that had some issues with build in noise reduction on raw at higher ISOs.

Fuji during the build up for the GFX100 made several comments on a pixel shift for the GFX100, since it has the IBIS setup.

Sadly it seems that Fuji currently is more focused on the APS-C bodies and continues to roll out new ones every 6 moths or so.

The GFX100 would benefit immensely by pixel shift addition, both in the ability to capture cleaner images due to the resampling effect of shifting and the possibly of higher resolution. I am not really in need of great pixel resolution than given by 100MP, but I personally believe the GFX100 does not have the same low ISO DR as the 4150, (4150 to me is just cleaner when pushed and retains more finer details), so by allowing some form of pixel shift it would give the GFX100 a real positive upgrade.

I would still love to see Fuji attempt to improve on the AF also, as IMO the low light AF is very hit and miss (more miss than hit) and in low contrast situations, AF can be just as troubling. Would love to see improvements that bring the AF to the level of a Nikon Z7.

Paul C
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Frame averaging is an awesome capability on the IQ4150 - not perfect but it really does open up image quality improvements and long exposure options too in camera. It would be a fantastic addition if Fuji could add that too in the future. I basically retired my NDs for my Actus/IQ4150 kit. I'd love to do that with the GFX100 too.

Now if we could have a mode that combined pixel shift AND automated frame averaging ... :watch:
The problem is timing. For FA to work, there have to be gaps between frames as short as possible. But pixel shift means that three other frames are taken before returning to your original position. It would be a mess. Just plain FA would be nicer, IMHO, than any resolution enhancement. But then, I'm not a product photog.

Well, I suppose you could take four FA exposures, but the sun will have set by the time you're done :ROTFL:

M
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I’ll take FA over pixel shift since I’m a landscape vs product guy. :thumbup:

(but I’ll take pixel shift too :D )
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The problem is timing. For FA to work, there have to be gaps between frames as short as possible. But pixel shift means that three other frames are taken before returning to your original position. It would be a mess. Just plain FA would be nicer, IMHO, than any resolution enhancement. But then, I'm not a product photog.

Well, I suppose you could take four FA exposures, but the sun will have set by the time you're done :ROTFL:

M
I have foundPixel shift can and will work fine for many landscape images. I agree the issue is always movement of subject matter, for landscape mainly wind. However I was able to use the K1 many more times than I thought I would in Landscape image work. The KEY is the raw converter, as LR/ACR never worked at all on the K1 image and thus anything involving movement wind or water showed aliasing. However other converters (Irident, Silkypix, rawtherapee, etc.), all manage to handle the issues.

K1 was unique, in that you did not gain in resolution, still a 36MP image, however results were more detailed and much cleaner.

Fuji seems to be working on the Oly, and Sony model, increase resolution. I really have no need for 400MP output, as 150MP strains the current workflow as it is. Odds are I would be down resing the files. Just curious as how the images look, in regards to cleaner DR.

The FA solution Phase has come out with can produce wonderfully clean files, however it's also plagued by wind movement. In fact it seems more so than the K1 solution since several raw converters were able to work around mild wind. Phase solution can tolerate no movement.

Paul C
 
Top