p.17 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Flat Earthers would cry looking at this gif RoamingScott wrote:
Here is a GIF I made of the uncorrected raw versus checking the profile correction option in Lightroom.
p.17 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Fair question, I'm not sure. My hope would be that it's just a reality of a WA focal length, and not some under-correction to minimize impact.
The more I think about it though, I do believe I've shot even wider than 28mm and have had straight lines near the edges. Some of my rotunda ceiling shots, etc.
Edit:
Went back and looked at some of my 14-24 shots at 14mm. I have straight lines at the edges SooC with distortion correction turned on.
Unless you can see the curvature of the earth at 28mm....which I somewhat doubt.
RoamingScott wrote:
I so rarely shoot 28 mm equivalent, would the horizon normally be straight that high in the frame?
p.17 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I pulled my preorder.
The only pro I had was this camera had a MF Fuji 100MP sensor in a small body.
I also have concerns with the lens. I wasn't happy that there was no character or draw with it which I knew going in but I was hoping for better performance.
If I'm going to do street photography I'm not going to blow up the images and I prefer 35mm. I might as well use my A7CR of pick up a Fuji X100VI for that. That lens has a nice draw and will isolate the subject better Than the GFX100RF.
And if I'm going to be doing landscapes (which is my primary) I won't mind taking the larger GFX.
p.17 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Yeah, I'm teetering on pulling my preorder as well. I was going to use it for landscapes, pretty much tripod mounted all the time. Lack of IBIS didn't bother me. Kind of my door to playing around with MF. But if I like it, but am let down a bit by the lens, then I'll be wanting something like the GFX100S II and I'm already in the hole for quite a bit of $$$.
fotografur wrote:
I pulled my preorder.
The only pro I had was this camera had a MF Fuji 100MP sensor in a small body.
I also have concerns with the lens. I wasn't happy that there was no character or draw with it which I knew going in but I was hoping for better performance.
If I'm going to do street photography I'm not going to blow up the images and I prefer 35mm. I might as well use my A7CR of pick up a Fuji X100VI for that. That lens has a nice draw and will isolate the subject better Than the GFX100RF.
And if I'm going to be doing landscapes (which is my primary) I won't mind taking the larger GFX.
p.17 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
Short reminder to all of us. Low resolution allows for longer shutter speeds. 100Mpix can be pretty brutal at low shutter speeds and low might be faster than you think. An easy, occasional fix, if like me you don’t want to carry a tripod, or monopod ,is to toss a clamp in your bag.
I'd like to ask a question to the folks here as someone who currently owns a x-pro2. (ie. no IBIS). My last trip I used the x-pro2 with 35mm f/2 and 23mm f/2. in low light. given the x-pro2's sensor age but no IBIS on that setup, would there be a difference of an x-pro2 sensor shake at the same shutter speed as we think from the GFX. I understand that the GFX is only f4 but given the latest sensor technologies and size, it might be better noise wise at high ISOs. To summarize, is there a difference between sensors and hand holding shake?
p.17 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
My biggest concern is no IBIS with 100MP. The Q3 and M11 are 60MP in a smaller sensor size than the 100RF. So to directly compare them for me is odd with varying MP combined with sensor size and AF versus MF.
We are all different based on what is the lowest SS we can hand hold. As I have aged that number keeps getting higher. That is also why I started buying the Leica Q series with AF, leaf shutter and some stabilization.
I never would have bought my 50MP and 100MP Fuji cameras if they had not offered IBIS.
This is a also my appeal to using the SL3 with IBIS while shooting some hard to focus M lenses.
With my own experience, I have decided I will stick with what I currently have for MY needs.
p.17 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
fotografur wrote:
I pulled my preorder.
The only pro I had was this camera had a MF Fuji 100MP sensor in a small body.
I also have concerns with the lens. I wasn't happy that there was no character or draw with it which I knew going in but I was hoping for better performance.
If I'm going to do street photography I'm not going to blow up the images and I prefer 35mm. I might as well use my A7CR of pick up a Fuji X100VI for that. That lens has a nice draw and will isolate the subject better Than the GFX100RF.
And if I'm going to be doing landscapes (which is my primary) I won't mind taking the larger GFX.
The lens will be more than fine, I bet. This is not going to be the first not great GF lens.
LR will add it in the system with an update and all of that stuff you guys are talking about will be a non-issue. There is no way this lens is not going to be outstanding.
I don't have it, but I can tell some of the stuff you guys are worried about is not going to be a big deal.
But sure, if you already have a GFX 100 model camera and some GF lenses, you are of course fine and you aren't going to not get work done by not owning this camera. But not buying this new camera because of lens quality concerns is not going to be a thing. Not buying it because you don't like 28mm equivalent or want IBIS is a real thing. Lens quality is going to be a strength, not a weakness.
p.17 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I cancelled my preorder, if the lens is as outstanding as you guess, I can always order again. I'll just be further down in the queue.
Greg7579 wrote:
The lens will be more than fine, I bet. This is not going to be the first not great GF lens.
LR will add it in the system with an update and all of that stuff you guys are talking about will be a non-issue. There is no way this lens is not going to be outstanding.
I don't have it, but I can tell some of the stuff you guys are worried about is not going to be a big deal.
But sure, if you already have a GFX 100 model camera and some GF lenses, you are of course fine and you aren't going to not get work done by not owning this camera. But not buying this new camera because of lens quality concerns is not going to be a thing. Not buying it because you don't like 28mm equivalent or want IBIS is a real thing. Lens quality is going to be a strength, not a weakness.
p.17 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I'm still holding my preorder only because flipping should be a viable alternative to keeping it I have to remind myself that these first-posted RAW files are always dire. You can just look at the exposure settings in the dropbox files, and all you can do is shake your head on a few of them.
But yes, the lens situation is more bothersome to me than no IBIS. The way they are requiring the hood extension makes it so large they could have just put a longer, faster lens on this thing.
To the point about the X100V/VI lens, it's true that at least it has some character, even if it's borderline unusable wide open. Between 2.2 and 3.2, the rendering will be more interesting to be sure compared to the RF wide open at 4. You will never get "character" out of the RF.
p.17 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
The lens will be more than fine, I bet. This is not going to be the first not great GF lens.
LR will add it in the system with an update and all of that stuff you guys are talking about will be a non-issue. There is no way this lens is not going to be outstanding.
I don't have it, but I can tell some of the stuff you guys are worried about is not going to be a big deal.
But sure, if you already have a GFX 100 model camera and some GF lenses, you are of course fine and you aren't going to not get work done by not owning this camera. But not buying this new camera because of lens quality concerns is not going to be a thing. Not buying it because you don't like 28mm equivalent or want IBIS is a real thing. Lens quality is going to be a strength, not a weakness.
You don't need to guess. The profile is already in LR, and the corrections point to a VERY heavy hand in getting rid of the distortion. It's one of the worst I've seen since the newer Sony compact primes.
I have the RAW files on my harddrive and in my LR. I'm not impressed, and I've been doing this a long time.
p.17 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
One other thing to consider is that the X100V/VI MFD is 3.9" vs 7.9" on the RF. I enjoy using the X100 line near MFD frequently, and you'll need to crop significantly to mimic the FOV on the RF.
p.17 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I think reading rants on the internet Fuji should have made this camera with "interchangeable" lens options. Not like a common ILCE, because the fundamental design is the lens significant part inside body to keep small the camera, so too dangerous changing lens for the sensor. They should have released different types as Sigma DP series, and if you want a different option, in a camera service they can swap the lens.
I don't know it's technically possible, or how mutch is the size cut because the lens extension into camera body (it's approximate 20mm) also as it is lot closer to sensor may also can help reduce the size while keeping optical performance high. If the gain only that 2cm, instead a normal ILCE with leaf shutter lenses as in Hassleblad system.
For example Sony's 40 2.5 lens is quite close to Leica's 43mm APO, only miss that is Sony has no competitive body (only the dumb A7CR, so I'd use A7RIV instead). If Sony, or other manufacturer would make a RF style camera with tilt screen, 3M dot EVF combined high resolution stacked sensor with electronic shutter I'd never take Leica Q, GFX100RF, RX1Rxx into consideration ever. The closest thing is the Sigma BF now. Camera manufacturers wants us, enthusiast amateurs, running on vacations, city walks, family trips with DSLR style, professional grade bodies if we want top IQ and good AF. Or they just want keep alive Leica with Q and M series so never touch that minimalist rangefinder style segment for photographers.
This camera is very close what I want, I'd just keep a cheap second camera with fast 50mm lens for portraits.
p.17 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
For those considering the RF for landscape applications, note the correction of the GF zoom in the same "range", the 32-64. There is a tiny bit of distortion correction, but at 35mm it's almost imperceptible.
If you're serious about landscape photography, this tells you what you need to know.
p.17 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jturn00 wrote:
I'd like to ask a question to the folks here as someone who currently owns a x-pro2. (ie. no IBIS). My last trip I used the x-pro2 with 35mm f/2 and 23mm f/2. in low light. given the x-pro2's sensor age but no IBIS on that setup, would there be a difference of an x-pro2 sensor shake at the same shutter speed as we think from the GFX. I understand that the GFX is only f4 but given the latest sensor technologies and size, it might be better noise wise at high ISOs. To summarize, is there a difference between sensors and hand holding shake?
I think people have it backwards when they say that a lower resolution sensor allows for shutter speeds. The reason may be subtle, but it is relevant to some of the questions that come up in this regard. (Here I’m speaking of issues related to the photographers ability to hold the camera “steady enough.”)
Let’s say that you have two cameras that are identical, except that one has a higher resolution sensor. Let’s use your XPro2 as one of them and an imaginary XPro Max (yes, I made that up) with a 50MP sensor for the other one. Let’s make two exposures at the same aperture and shutter speed, with the same lens — and let’s hand hold the camera in both cases.
There will be exactly the same amplitude of blur caused by camera motion in both cases. In the latter case the blur will be imaged more accurately, if that makes sense. If you made, say 16” x 24” prints from both images, and then measured the extent of the blur, it would be exactly teh same. Increasing the photo site density does not make the camera more or less stable.
So, if the blur is the same, what is the potential advantage of the higher MP system?
The advantage comes in situations in which blur can be so well controlled that it isn’t the limiting factor. If, instead of hand holding the two cameras, both were made perfectly stable then the higher resolution sensor would have the objective advantage of being able to resolve a bit more detail. (Whether or not you would notice the difference in those 16” x 24” prints is a diffferent — and surprisingly complicated — question.)
A mistake that I think some people make is assuming that if the magnitude of the motion blur is smaller than the distance between photo sites that it won’t matter. But digital sampling ones not work that way.
Bottom line: higher photo sites density sensors do not make a camera more sensitive to motion/vibration/blur. However, if you can further control camera instability (tripod, IBIS, OIS, etc.) then the higher resolution sensor camera may register a bit more detail.
- - -
Regarding “sensor noise” at higher ISOs on your XPro2, you can do some impressive stuff with it in low light if you apply noise reduction in post. If you are really pushing things and you use Adobe products, I’d take a look at their new AI noise reduction tools. I’ve been using that in ACR and it does some pretty remarkable things with images that were even borderline unusable in the past. (I shot the Xpro-2 for years until I recently replaced it with the XT5, and I did a lot of low-light urban night photography with it.)
p.17 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
I think reading rants on the internet Fuji should have made this camera with "interchangeable" lens options. Not like a common ILCE, because the fundamental design is the lens significant part inside body to keep small the camera, so too dangerous changing lens for the sensor. They should have released different types as Sigma DP series, and if you want a different option, in a camera service they can swap the lens.
I don't know it's technically possible, or how mutch is the size cut because the lens extension into camera body (it's approximate 20mm) also as it is lot closer to sensor may also can help reduce the size while keeping optical performance high. If the gain only that 2cm, instead a normal ILCE with leaf shutter lenses as in Hassleblad system.
For example Sony's 40 2.5 lens is quite close to Leica's 43mm APO, only miss that is Sony has no competitive body (only the dumb A7CR, so I'd use A7RIV instead). If Sony, or other manufacturer would make a RF style camera with tilt screen, 3M dot EVF combined high resolution stacked sensor with electronic shutter I'd never take Leica Q, GFX100RF, RX1Rxx into consideration ever. The closest thing is the Sigma BF now. Camera manufacturers wants us, enthusiast amateurs, running on vacations, city walks, family trips with DSLR style, professional grade bodies if we want top IQ and good AF. Or they just want keep alive Leica with Q and M series so never touch that minimalist rangefinder style segment for photographers.
This camera is very close what I want, I'd just keep a cheap second camera with fast 50mm lens for portraits....Show more →
In the RF, much of the lens glass is inside of the camera. If you make it in an interchangeable lens camera, you lose the size advantage I’m not sure what you think is “dumb” about the.A7CR. I’ve owned many of the Sony cameras up to the A7Rv and I have sold them and now use the an A7CR. It is quite a capable camera. I would not trade this stabilized camera for the Fujifilm RF. .It certainly has some marketing shortcoming such as the EVF… that I think was intentional hindrance designed to be remedied to the next version.
p.17 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I love how those who were triggered by cautions about jumping too quickly on the next meme camera as the Most Amazing New Thing In All Of Photography are now coming around to… explaining why caution is advised.
about its accuracy).
