p.18 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
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.
I don't intend bashing A7CR, still hesitating to get that camera, but the bokeh killer EFCS and 1M dot LCD is a huge flop for me (I don't mind the small EVF). Tilting screen over articulating is my own preference, I don't like the articulating screen, prefer to have even a 2M dot fixed over 1M dot flippy.
p.18 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
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.
There is a price to be paid when you shrink a camera and lenses. I think the question might be, would you be able to pick out the RF images after correction when combined with similar images from other camera/lenses? I think your previous point of how poorly the horizon was corrected is something that could be better corrected in the future. I’ve seen some serious criticism of the new Hasselblad .XCDv lenses due to their use of software correction, but I have some huge prints shot at f/2.5 hanging on my walls and I can say that the end product.. the large prints.. are spectacular.
p.18 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
There is a price to be paid when you shrink a camera and lenses. I think the question might be, would you be able to pick out the RF images after correction when combined with similar images from other camera/lenses? I think your previous point of how poorly the horizon was corrected is something that could be better corrected in the future. I’ve seen some serious criticism of the new Hasselblad .XCDv lenses due to their use of software correction, but I have some huge prints shot at f/2.5 hanging on my walls and I can say that the end product.. the large prints.. are spectacular....Show more →
Of course there's no free lunch, but this is a luxury-priced item. If you're fine with software correction, and many are, that's totally cool. If you're trying to squeeze IQ out, this isn't likely the camera for you. There's very little "GFX" about this camera, as I've said, it's MUCH more akin to an X100 that happens to be 100mp, with many of the same warts but not as much of the character.
I was curious how much correction is happening on the X100, but sadly that profile is built into the RAWs on import, not sure if you can disable it (don't think you can).
p.18 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.18 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jturn00 wrote:
As an aside, I started using Topaz for upscaling / noise reduction on some older photos (Film scanned photos from years ago) instead of Adobe.
As an aside to your aside, if you haven’t tried the new Adobe AI NR tools, you might do so. They do a remarkable job of reducing noise on files that were borderline unusable in the past.
p.18 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Of course there's no free lunch, but this is a luxury-priced item. If you're fine with software correction, and many are, that's totally cool. If you're trying to squeeze IQ out, this isn't likely the camera for you. There's very little "GFX" about this camera, as I've said, it's MUCH more akin to an X100 that happens to be 100mp, with many of the same warts but not as much of the character.
I was curious how much correction is happening on the X100, but sadly that profile is built into the RAWs on import, not sure if you can disable it (don't think you can)....Show more →
What affordable compact wide angle lens does not use software correction?
I don’t understand thinking that this camera is a luxury camera. this is an entry-level camera for digital medium format.
p.18 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
No, a used 50S/50R is an entry-level camera for digital medium format at 1/3 the price.
There's a special level of out of touch if you don't see how a $5000 fixed lens MF camera isn't a luxury in this economy.
You are right, it is definitely a luxury item. I would say the Q3 is too, and I love shooting that camera and I adore that Summilux 28. F1.7 with OIS makes for a pretty nice combination, and I love that lens, digital correction or not.
I would love to get my hands on that GFX RF and shoot it for one day the way I shoot it. I trust my own raw files more than downloaded samples someone else shot in no one knows what way. If I had 50 of my own raw files from that new camera, I would know within a couple of hours in post exactly how those raw files compare to what I expect from GFX with 14 other lenses, and how the files compare to Q3 files io those same shooting situations.
It is almost worth buying it to find out. 😁
By the way Scott, are you and Chez making fun of me or someone else with all of that Smart Man talk and other quips, while expressing irritation that I would dare talk about this GFX camera because I said I probably won't buy it because of no stabilization?
I think it is me, but it is hard to tell on these long thread flows. If it is me, that's OK. I have pretty thick skin on camera forums and tend not to take stuff personally. Remember, we are talking about cameras here and less than 1/10,000th of 1 percent of humanity shoots these cameras we argue about. I always remind myself to just be happy Fuji even makes cameras these days (same for Sony, Leica, Nikon and Canon).
p.18 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
No, a used 50S/50R is an entry-level camera for digital medium format at 1/3 the price.
There's a special level of out of touch if you don't see how a $5000 fixed lens MF camera isn't a luxury in this economy.
A difference of opinion is not out of touch. Find another less expensive new/current medium format camera/lens. It is true that used equipment is available. To me, Luxury is an expense that provides aesthetic value more than functional value. The next generation of Leica medium format, if it appears, should qualify. Regardless, the GFX is an entry level system. The RF is the least expensive GFX camera/lens. It is also a very capable system of cameras. To be clear, I agree that this is an expensive camera.
p.18 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
A difference of opinion is not out of touch. Find another less expensive new/current medium format camera/lens. It is true that used equipment is available. To me, Luxury is an expense that provides aesthetic value more than functional value. The next generation of Leica medium format, if it appears, should qualify. Regardless, the GFX is an entry level system. The RF is the least expensive GFX camera/lens. It is also a very capable system of cameras. To be clear, I agree that this is an expensive camera.
Some random qualification that the camera must be the latest generation to be an "entry level" is a bit odd. The differences between even the 100S and 100Sii are so minor in the real world that discounting even the 100S as entry would be silly (even though I wouldn't even call the 100S entry at its $2500-3000 price).
p.18 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chez wrote:
Yep…he’s back posting furiously about a camera he has no intention of owning. Me thinks he just likes being heard.
If you go back through other posts you will find that probably half the people on here aren't going to buy it but they are happy to split hairs and opine. And none of the people on here have even seen one in person but have deemed themselves experts, a beautiful example of the Dunning Kruger Effect. There is one in particular whose foaming is a textbook case.
p.18 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
I don't intend bashing A7CR, still hesitating to get that camera, but the bokeh killer EFCS and 1M dot LCD is a huge flop for me (I don't mind the small EVF). Tilting screen over articulating is my own preference, I don't like the articulating screen, prefer to have even a 2M dot fixed over 1M dot flippy.
I understand… I’m hoping version 2 gets what you want and my EVF upgrade.
