p.21 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
FM uploads are a bit pointless for inspection at this level. You'd need to host externally and embed, not upload.
Thanks for the pat on the back for my efforts Scott. I think my post was not pointless and did successfully communicate 100RF photo quality information.
p.21 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
goodbokeh wrote:
Thanks for the pat on the back for my efforts Scott. I think my post was not pointless and did successfully communicate 100RF photo quality information.
If we're going to have a conversation about the nuances of edge case image quality, don't kneecap the image quality and then start dissecting it
I've said this 100 times on the Fuji boards, but people insist on uploading terribly compressed images and then try to analyze them. That's not helpful. I do appreciate efforts to educate and elucidate, let's just present the best quality we can before we have a discussion.
p.21 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
If we're going to have a conversation about the nuances of edge case image quality, don't kneecap the image quality and then start dissecting it
I've said this 100 times on the Fuji boards, but people insist on uploading terribly compressed images and then try to analyze them. That's not helpful. I do appreciate efforts to educate and elucidate, let's just present the best quality we can before we have a discussion.
Scott, let's just use our eyes rather than flexing oversized egos before we can have a image quality discussion.
p.21 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
One of my uses of IBIS in questionable light is when I want to stop down despite the lack of illumination. Just because I have a low light situation doesn’t mean that I want a shallow depth of field.
One of the myths/misconceptions that many have is that you need to use the very largest aperture when you shoot in low light. I’ve mentioned that I do night street photography. Sometimes I use f/1.4 lenses, but more often I use lenses with maximum apertures in the f/2-f/2.8 range… and I rarely shoot those wide open. F/4 is probably typical, since it is getting sufficient DOF is usually important.
So I rely more on being able to raise the ISO on modern cameras in low light than on big apertures. That’s one reason that IBIS is useful in so many (admittedly not all) cases, since at low shutter speeds it is difficult, bordering on impossible, to reliably hand hold the camera with enough steadiness to guarantee a sharp result.
As far as subject motion goes, IBIS is essentially agnostic. It doesn’t help but it also doesn’t hurt. (Unless your concept of the shot is to intentionally allow some subject motion blur — which isn’t always a bad choice.)
p.21 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
I would choose the XT5 over the X100vi for landscape since it has higher resolution, a larger battery, very small size, and can accommodate different lenses — so that I could choose a single small prime that best fits my likely needs, carry an extra small prime for versatility, or on occasion put any of a range of lenses on the thing.
That’s pretty much how I use it.
90% of the time is is my everyday, “always with me” camera, equipped with the 27mm f/2.8 pancake. While the X100vi is smaller, the difference isn’t that great.
But I also carry it as my second camera when shooting landscapes. sometimes in this role I just keep the 27mm on it for quick photographs when I don’t want to get out that large system (or while I’m photographing with the large system). But I can also equip it with more typical landscape lenses and put it on my second tripod and do actual landscape work with it.
I use my XT5 in a similarly but with an 18 on it most of the time, lately my Voigtlander 18/2.8 Color-Skopar. Nice little lens. Was interested in how the RF could play in with my kit it would be easy to pack as well even when going small with APSC kit. The price is high though for a B cam type role though but it is very appealing to me.
p.21 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chez wrote:
For my real world shooting 1/30 is too slow as my subjects don’t sit still. One needs to really look how they’d be using the camera to determine what affect lack of ibis would have on their shooting style. I’m either at the 1/125 range or if I’m shooting landscapes at the 1/10 or longer range which I then use a tripod.
I’d be counting n the high iso abilities of the camera more than ibis.
+1 for understanding use case ... and the dividing lines for where your strategies apply vs. differ in approach.
p.21 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
+1 for understanding use case ... and the dividing lines for where your strategies apply vs. differ in approach.
Very true. I had a feeling Chez would be interested knowing his photographic use cases and the fact he had been sniffing around GFX releases for years. They were just always too big.
p.21 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rbf_ wrote:
Very true. I had a feeling Chez would be interested knowing his photographic use cases and the fact he had been sniffing around GFX releases for years. They were just always too big.
Yeah, I looked at the GFX 50R, "back when" ... but, something about Fuji GFX builds is just rather "bulky". This new one brings a degree of svelte to the GFX that we've not seen before.
It's not just the size ... but the size and the shape / form for how it fits in your hand, etc. ...
Just about any hammer can drive a nail, but some hammers lend themselves to be used all day long ... and others you're ready to be done in about three swings.
p.21 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Yeah, I looked at the GFX 50R, "back when" ... but, something about Fuji GFX builds is just rather "bulky". This new one brings a degree of svelte to the GFX that we've not seen before.
It's not just the size ... but the size and the shape / form for how it fits in your hand, etc. ...
Just about any hammer can drive a nail, but some hammers lend themselves to be used all day long ... and others you're ready to be done in about three swings.
It's definately on the bulky/heavy side of things. I've converged on the 20-35, 35-70 and 100-200 for my default bag and that's pretty manageable for me and what I'm doing. But yeah this is really different in terms of form factor for the GFX system.
p.21 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Read this entire thread, watched the reviews, lots of comparisons to the q3 everywhere. I love the aspect and crop dials, I change the aspect constantly on my gfx-pan-100s , but I see this as an excellent travel, backpacking, carry everywhere camera, if they were to release a set of teleconverters for it similar to the x100, that would be the chefs kiss. Lastly I think this could be a great successor to my griii.
On the flip side, I hope it isn’t too much like the x100, I’ve owned a few of them and always sold them due to them feeling like hollow toys to me in build quality.
Placed my preorder.
Last wish is for a 3rd party hood to come out which will mount directly to the adapter ring, for an even smaller profile.
p.21 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
robsonj wrote:
(...)if they were to release a set of teleconverters for it similar to the x100, that would be the chefs kiss. (...)
But why? You have 20MP at 80mm eq. cropped in. The whole point of this camera is to be a one-and-done deal - no more fiddling with extra stuff. Just once camera, one lens - get at it. After using the Leica Q3 for now almost two years after years and years hauling DSLR and now MILC stuff around this is quite liberating tbh. Give it a try and feel how liberating it can be to limit oneself to just one camera - one lens. Crop away - it's just another tool in the toolbox and shouldn't be dismissed. No one in here needs 100MP on a daily basis and those who do, already have a GFX camera with the appropriate lenses. If you want teleconverters, this is not the camera for you.
Personally I'm happy Fujifilm brought out this camera. I have 0 interest in a 28mm eq. /f4 fixed lens camera but would be on the preorder list if they ever make that same body with the GF 50 3.5 integrated. Would pair nicely with my Q3 and I'd consider selling all the Canon stuff I (sadly) rarely use anymore.
p.21 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Lol, ego? I asked for you to embed full res exports so we can actually see the results. I'm BEGGING others to contribute meaningfully to this thread
Scott, you have a point about posting full-size high-quality jpegs, like I always do with GFX and Q3 exported jpegs on Flickr 100% of the time, but few people do (especially pros who don't want to give away their work like I do.
I think some time is going to have to go by when hundreds of GFX shooters who are very familiar with what GFX shots are supposed to look like at full res on pro 4K, 5K and 6K monitors and provide their observations about the lens and not having stabilization as well as post full-size 90% quality jpeg exports to Flickr for link to this site. Then people can download the full-size jpeg from Flickr and actually see what a full-size high quality jpeg export looks like on a pro high res monitor or when printing big.
On a related note, can someone tell me the limits on posting images here if I decide to pay to do it? What are the file size limits in MB? I prefer to leave exported jpegs from LR full size but lower the jpeg quality in order to meet file size limits. That lets the jpeg algorithm do its magic without resizing the dimensions (unless you have to in order to meet a MB restriction. I think in most cases with GFX files, 80% quality drastically lowers the MB size, and the quality is not much noticeably worse than 100%. 90% is no discernable difference from 100%quality when exporting jpegs from LR.
p.21 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I didn’t say I’d buy them 😀. For backpacking I usually take my griii, I’ve tried hiking with the gfx100s and 32-64. Just too bulky, so this will be perfect in being a compact lighter alternative, while still having enough pixels to support those xpan aspect ratios.
I mostly shoot with a 28 or 35 on a m11 and m11m, so I also see this as a Q3m for times when I just want some autofocus.
But don’t get me wrong, having a teleconverter option would still be useful to round this camera out as a true travel powerhouse.
jj1804 wrote:
But why? You have 20MP at 80mm eq. cropped in. The whole point of this camera is to be a one-and-done deal - no more fiddling with extra stuff. Just once camera, one lens - get at it. After using the Leica Q3 for now almost two years after years and years hauling DSLR and now MILC stuff around this is quite liberating tbh. Give it a try and feel how liberating it can be to limit oneself to just one camera - one lens. Crop away - it's just another tool in the toolbox and shouldn't be dismissed. No one in here needs 100MP on a daily basis and those who do, already have a GFX camera with the appropriate lenses. If you want teleconverters, this is not the camera for you.
Personally I'm happy Fujifilm brought out this camera. I have 0 interest in a 28mm eq. /f4 fixed lens camera but would be on the preorder list if they ever make that same body with the GF 50 3.5 integrated. Would pair nicely with my Q3 and I'd consider selling all the Canon stuff I (sadly) rarely use anymore. ...Show more →
p.21 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
FM uploads are a bit pointless for inspection at this level. You'd need to host externally and embed, not upload.
I'm a detail junkie at heart ... but, I think you're making a bit of too much out the ideal, suggesting such that it mitigates any value presented here. These are FAR from being POINTLESS ...
Personally, the images posted get the message across just fine (imo). Loads of detail, and the software correction renders (these images) without offending distortion. Colors are viable. The only thing, I'd like to see (isn't a better upload, per se) is the raw / sooc to understand the native optic and the quality of correction against the challenge of the native optic to compare with.
Your example of the gif overlay was a nice presentation, but a separate sooc image will get the job done, too (for my needs).
Sometimes we have to take a step back and see the 99% good for what it is ... I mean, you can throw away a $100 bill if it is torn or dirty, if you want. It'll never be investment grade paper. The sky is falling ... right.
p.21 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
@robsonj: there are teleconverters for the GR III/IIIx and to me they completly defy the purpose and point of the camera - being compact. I kind of feel the same way towards the 100RF in regards to those teleconverters. You have 20MP at 80mm eq. If you need a longer lens for your GFX the 100-200 exists. I hope they invest their ressources into a 100RF 50 f/3.2 instead of teleconverters. But that's just wishful thinking on my part.
p.21 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
Scott, you have a point about posting full-size high-quality jpegs, like I always do with GFX and Q3 exported jpegs on Flickr 100% of the time, but few people do (especially pros who don't want to give away their work like I do.
I think some time is going to have to go by when hundreds of GFX shooters who are very familiar with what GFX shots are supposed to look like at full res on pro 4K, 5K and 6K monitors and provide their observations about the lens and not having stabilization as well as post full-size 90% quality jpeg exports to Flickr for link to this site. Then people can download the full-size jpeg from Flickr and actually see what a full-size high quality jpeg export looks like on a pro high res monitor or when printing big.
On a related note, can someone tell me the limits on posting images here if I decide to pay to do it? What are the file size limits in MB? I prefer to leave exported jpegs from LR full size but lower the jpeg quality in order to meet file size limits. That lets the jpeg algorithm do its magic without resizing the dimensions (unless you have to in order to meet a MB restriction. I think in most cases with GFX files, 80% quality drastically lowers the MB size, and the quality is not much noticeably worse than 100%. 90% is no discernable difference from 100%quality when exporting jpegs from LR.
Exporting your JPEGs at a limit of 3K pixels on either side with 90-95% compression will keep them within the forum limits if you're using the forum system. But if you want to post full size JPEGs, using the forum upload will NOT be what you want to do. Use the Flickr code that also links the preview back to them.
p.21 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I really don't see a downside to them having a teleconverter available for those who might like it.
I agree, especially for wider than 35mm (28mm eq) compositions, a WCL would be an awesome addition to a flexible, lightweight XPan (GFX-pan I saw someone here coin), and one I'd be more comfortable using vs. changing 100sii lenses with no sensor guard in the rain or snow, and easier than stitching
p.21 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Many posts are at cross purposes. On one hand we are bemoaning what little photo evidence that we have that the optics might not be first rate and on the other hand we want to degrade the optics with teleconverters. Gotta love the internet.
, but I see this as an excellent travel, backpacking, carry everywhere camera, if they were to release a set of teleconverters for it similar to the x100, that would be the chefs kiss. Lastly I think this could be a great successor to my griii.
