p.19 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I just downloaded and processed a number of the 100RF Raws from the DPReview site. I use Adobe Camera Raw and was happy to see the 100RF raw lens profile already there.
The image quality looks great in terms of resolution and dynamic range. From a quick review of my past images the image quality exceeds my Leica Q2 and Sony A7R5 (with a 35 GM). There's a good bit of distortion correction of the Raws being cleaned up by the Adobe lens profile.
Like the Q2 the 100RF lens appears a couple millimeters wider before the corrections are applied. Unfortunately the DPReview samples didn't include a squared up brick wall, so distortion is difficult to judge with any certainty. I'm looking forward to some good quality test results but I'm impressed so far.
p.19 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
goodbokeh wrote:
I just downloaded and processed a number of the 100RF Raws from the DPReview site. I use Adobe Camera Raw and was happy to see the 100RF raw lens profile already there.
The image quality looks great in terms of resolution and dynamic range. From a quick review of my past images the image quality exceeds my Leica Q2 and Sony A7R5 (with a 35 GM). There's a good bit of distortion correction of the Raws being cleaned up by the Adobe lens profile.
Like the Q2 the 100RF lens appears a couple millimeters wider before the corrections are applied. Unfortunately the DPReview samples didn't include a squared up brick wall, so distortion is difficult to judge with any certainty. I'm looking forward to some good quality test results but I'm impressed so far....Show more →
I guess we'll have to wait and see. It would be good if the quality of the lens did match the quality of the sensor.
p.19 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chiron wrote:
I guess we'll have to wait and see. It would be good if the quality of the lens did match the quality of the sensor.
RAWs available in the section below the video. I looked at them in C1 with update that adds support for the 100RF.
They don't look so great to me. Field curvature is insane. Even stopped down, sharpness falls off at the far edge, even in the middle of the edge not just the corners. Distortion correction (which can be removed in C1) isn't as heavy as the Q, but it's a strange looking distortion – looks like barrel, which is better than pincushion, but it's this weird bubble of distortion right in the center as if someone was pushing a basketball into the middle of the frame from the backside of the image but the basketball isn't large enough to affect the entire frame. The Q barrel distortion is across the whole frame, which seems more natural to me.
Just judging from these files, I'd pick the Q3 over the 100RF.
p.19 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
highdesertmesa wrote:
RAWs available in the section below the video. I looked at them in C1 with update that adds support for the 100RF.
They don't look so great to me. Field curvature is insane. Even stopped down, sharpness falls off at the far edge, even in the middle of the edge not just the corners. Distortion correction (which can be removed in C1) isn't as heavy as the Q, but it's a strange looking distortion – looks like barrel, which is better than pincushion, but it's this weird bubble of distortion right in the center as if someone was pushing a basketball into the middle of the frame from the backside of the image. The Q barrel distortion is across the whole frame, which seem more natural to me.
Just judging from these files, I'd pick the Q3 over the 100RF.
p.19 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
highdesertmesa wrote:
RAWs available in the section below the video. I looked at them in C1 with update that adds support for the 100RF.
They don't look so great to me. Field curvature is insane. Even stopped down, sharpness falls off at the far edge, even in the middle of the edge not just the corners. Distortion correction (which can be removed in C1) isn't as heavy as the Q, but it's a strange looking distortion – looks like barrel, which is better than pincushion, but it's this weird bubble of distortion right in the center as if someone was pushing a basketball into the middle of the frame from the backside of the image but the basketball isn't large enough to affect the entire frame. The Q barrel distortion is across the whole frame, which seems more natural to me.
Just judging from these files, I'd pick the Q3 over the 100RF.
p.19 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
highdesertmesa wrote:
RAWs available in the section below the video. I looked at them in C1 with update that adds support for the 100RF.
They don't look so great to me. Field curvature is insane. Even stopped down, sharpness falls off at the far edge, even in the middle of the edge not just the corners. Distortion correction (which can be removed in C1) isn't as heavy as the Q, but it's a strange looking distortion – looks like barrel, which is better than pincushion, but it's this weird bubble of distortion right in the center as if someone was pushing a basketball into the middle of the frame from the backside of the image but the basketball isn't large enough to affect the entire frame. The Q barrel distortion is across the whole frame, which seems more natural to me.
Just judging from these files, I'd pick the Q3 over the 100RF.
Yeah, these are the RAW files I judged my impression of the distortion on. The basketball analogy is a great description. I don't normally pay too much attention to distortion on any of my gear because none of it is this egregious. It's clear in multiple examples he's uploaded that the corners are paying the price of correction. The photo of the building makes me think that getting straight lines for architecture will be impossible.
Judging these samples against my GF lenses, it becomes even more obvious that this camera isn't "GFX" quality in IQ, merely sensor size. There is no maximizing output here, it's all compromise to get you good photos in good conditions. I suspect that in-body processed JPEGs might look a tad better than edited in LR with the profile, but maybe that's just wishful thinking (and means you'd have to shoot JPEG).
Again, if you think of this as a big ass X100V with tons more features, there is still value. If you are hell bent on viewing this as a real GFX camera, it simply isn't.
p.19 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
For those considering the RF for landscape applications,f
Don't.
I mentioned that I think this camera is going to be a "story teller" camera.
When the story is strong ... technicals can be total junk, and nobody gives a rat's backside. about the technicals.
Other than that, I'm grappling with a strong use case that other options aren't viable (of course, other options are always viable ... but, you know what I mean) as "better at" (something).
BUT, then even when I go ... Okay, cool ... an amazing entry of fixed lens, MF for story telling work ... it begs the question of whether or not I want MF for story telling work. I reckon there's a use case for that (maybe I'm just not in that realm).
My heart wants to dig on this thing ... but, my brain is going ... uhhhh, brain check ... are you sure about that ... what's the REAL attractant for this for you. My answer: 16 bit color (i.e. instead of Hassy 16 bit color system) in a svelte package for my architectural work. Ruh-Ro that distortion is a bugger, and it doesn't seem to have a much micro-contrast. Dang.
Okay, is it just an EDC for street / story stuff ... OR, do I just crop out the distortion (mentally prepared for that which won't correct well), to render it more like a 35mm (FF) with 60MP's (which is enough for me). Then, that takes me back to FF Q3 on pixel count, but I'm reminded, that's 14 bit color, not 16 bit color, so ... hmmm, maybe ... but, with "conditional acceptance".
Back to Hassy ... but, it's not as EDC svelte. And, (minor, but preference) the Fuji has monochrome profiles for viewing that the Hassy doesn't. So, yeah ... svelte and mono profiles with 16 bit color ... calls to me. Lens, not so much.
So, yup ... count me in the "almost pre-ordered" group.
p.19 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Again, if you think of this as a big ass X100V with tons more features, there is still value. If you are hell bent on viewing this as a real GFX camera, it simply isn't.
X100V on steriods ... that's probably the best summation I can come up with (including the optical limitations of the pancake).
p.19 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
For giggles, here's the Hassy 38/2.5 with and without correction.
Filed under "what could have been".
+1 ... while a 38/2.5 would have put a dent on the svelte shape, something to sorta "split the difference" on the distortion (aperture at f/4 is fine) between the two probably could have still been a nice package.
So, I took another lap around the images from this ^ link. I didn't find anything in there that was "objectionable" wrt to distortion. And, there were plenty of images with long straight lines, etc.
Has me wondering what the "disconnect" is between technical and realistic use. Those images had me on the brink of "pre-order". This thread has talked me from it. Hmmm ...
p.19 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Basing a purchase decision off of Jonas‘s photography is a fool’s errand. He is exceptionally talented and makes every camera he touches look good. I have no clue what amount of post processing he’s doing to his files, but of course, nothing will beat having the camera in hand and trying it yourself.
RustyBug wrote:
So, I took another lap around the images from this ^ link. I didn't find anything in there that was "objectionable" wrt to distortion. And, there were plenty of images with long straight lines, etc.
Has me wondering what the "disconnect" is between technical and realistic use. Those images had me on the brink of "pre-order". This thread has talked me from it. Hmmm ...
p.19 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
So, I took another lap around the images from this ^ link. I didn't find anything in there that was "objectionable" wrt to distortion. And, there were plenty of images with long straight lines, etc.
Has me wondering what the "disconnect" is between technical and realistic use. Those images had me on the brink of "pre-order". This thread has talked me from it. Hmmm ...
I feel the same way. I had a preorder and then cancelled it. Instead, I'm waiting on delivery of a GFX 100s II and now I'm wondering if the compact size of the RF would have been better. However, my anticipated use case is more for landscape which is why I moved away from the RF.
p.19 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Basing a purchase decision off of Jonas‘s photography is a fool’s errand. He is exceptionally talented and makes every camera he touches look good. I have no clue what amount of post processing he’s doing to his files, but of course, nothing will beat having the camera in hand and trying it yourself.
Understood.
I'm just pointing out "it can be done". To what level of effort, is a different question ... and recognizing inspiration doesn't always equate to reality, yeah I get that.
I was "inspired" by Adams work. Then, when you learned what he REALLY DID ... well, I was a chrome shooter, and the amount of darkroom adjustments, etc. didn't jive with my workflow using chromes with my travels.
Not acting the fool, per se ... but, if the goal is the IQ, and it is attainable (which Jonas presents a case), the question then becomes at what level of effort. Were these extreme post efforts ... or, was the in camera profile correction jpg really well executed, etc.
Like you said ... "in hand" will be the best test (of any of 'em) wrt to how it works (or doesn't) for ya. We're being pretty hard on that lens, and if I present our discussion against the pics on his post ... yeah, there's a disconnect between the two.
p.19 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rji2goleez wrote:
I feel the same way. I had a preorder and then cancelled it. Instead, I'm waiting on delivery of a GFX 100s II and now I'm wondering if the compact size of the RF would have been better. However, my anticipated use case is more for landscape which is why I moved away from the RF.
I mention "story teller" ... but, maybe this one will just come down to "it's fun" to shoot. X100V on steroids, kinda thing.
An enigma, at the moment ... but time will figure it out.
