p.3 #1 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
kalani_kane wrote:
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but anyone else interested in a native GF leaf shutter line?
Not only for high-speed shutter flash sync, but also reducing shutter shock especially for wildlife. The current 500mm + 250mm primes coupled with 1.4x option offers an ok existing prime range, especially with crop-ability and added reach of 102mpx MF sensor, but shutter shock limits usable frame rates imho. There already exists a GFX option to choose body shutter or lens shutter, for example with Hasselblad GFX-H adaptor and 300mm HC with 1.7x tele, but we lose autofocus adapting. A native GF leaf shutter line would be amazing.
If we are dreaming, we could skip the leaf and go straight to a stacked sensor with electronic shutter, pre-capture raw, blackout free shooting, 20fps...and use existing lenses, but cost would be probably prohibitive. ...Show more →
You are right, they could make leaf shutter lenses, but they haven't. I used several Hasselblad HC lenses on the GFX (24, 100, & 300) and the leaf shutter works fine even if the AF doesn't. With new lenses they could no doubt offer leaf shutter options. I think it would make more sense to offer these for the high-speed flash sync as I do think there will eventually be a stacked sensor GFX. A 44 X 33mm scaled up version of the sensor in the Sony A1 and A1 II or in the Nikon Z8 and Z9 seems totally possible to me within the next 10 years. It will be an expensive camera, probably very expensive, but I think it will happen.
When that camera comes out is when I think they should consider making the faster aperture primes and zoom kelang was talking about. It will also fix the shutter shock issue, as you could shoot in electronic shutter mode. It won't fix the flash sync speed, however, and I think even a stacked sensor 44 X 33mm sensor would need a mechanical shutter for flash--much as the A1 and A1 II have--as scanning the whole bigger sensor will be slower. To really get the flash sync speeds up you would need a global shutter 44 X 33mm sensor and that is a long way away.
So, I think the leaf shutter should go in lenses that are likely to be used with high flash sync speeds. It would be good to make a leaf shutter version of the f/1.7 and f/2 lenses. I think Fuji should put that on their agenda as well.
p.3 #2 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Thanks, I agree there seems to be something preventing Fuji from going faster than f/1.7 with its primes. I don't think there is anything that can't be solved with better engineering, it just seems this is an area of weakness for Fuji.
For the telephoto zoom, yeah, I would assume it would be large. I think about the Sony 50-150mm f/2 I have and I would be fine with that size or even a bit larger. It's more interesting for me if I don't have to change lenses as much, particularly as there is no sensor cover on the GFX (how is that possible given they target landscape shooters).
p.3 #3 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
ketang wrote:
Thanks, I agree there seems to be something preventing Fuji from going faster than f/1.7 with its primes. I don't think there is anything that can't be solved with better engineering, it just seems this is an area of weakness for Fuji.
For the telephoto zoom, yeah, I would assume it would be large. I think about the Sony 50-150mm f/2 I have and I would be fine with that size or even a bit larger. It's more interesting for me if I don't have to change lenses as much, particularly as there is no sensor cover on the GFX (how is that possible given they target landscape shooters)....Show more →
I wouldn't want anything much faster than 1.7 on GF. Ever played with the Mitakon? That paper-thin slice of DOF can be infuriating sometimes. I'd much rather have a 1.7 lens that hits focus the vast majority of the time with autofocus.
p.3 #4 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
ketang wrote:
Thanks, I agree there seems to be something preventing Fuji from going faster than f/1.7 with its primes. I don't think there is anything that can't be solved with better engineering, it just seems this is an area of weakness for Fuji.
For the telephoto zoom, yeah, I would assume it would be large. I think about the Sony 50-150mm f/2 I have and I would be fine with that size or even a bit larger. It's more interesting for me if I don't have to change lenses as much, particularly as there is no sensor cover on the GFX (how is that possible given they target landscape shooters)....Show more →
Remember that DOF is already smaller at a given aperture on a larger format like mniMF, so you don’t really need the same largest apertures here to get the same effect.
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
p.3 #5 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
RoamingScott wrote:
I wouldn't want anything much faster than 1.7 on GF. Ever played with the Mitakon? That paper-thin slice of DOF can be infuriating sometimes. I'd much rather have a 1.7 lens that hits focus the vast majority of the time with autofocus.
Agree on the f/1.7 max aperture. I've been using the 55mm 1.7 for a month or so and it has razor thin DoF
p.3 #6 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
I shoot weddings with my GFX bodies. I would kill for a prime in the 30-35mm range with a f1.7 to f2 aperture.Then I don't have to adapt the Tamron 35mm f1.7. And also a 175mm f2 or 2.5.
p.3 #7 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
brianbeatty wrote:
Agree on the f/1.7 max aperture. I've been using the 55mm 1.7 for a month or so and it has razor thin DoF
Same here. The first thing I did was shoot a bunch of shots wide open and realized that too much of a good thing is possible with this lens. I don't feel the need for it to be faster.
p.3 #8 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
SGinNorcal wrote:
I did was [made] a bunch of shots wide open and realized that too much of a good thing is possible with this lens. I don't feel the need for it to be faster.
I do a lot of night street photography with handheld APS-C (mostly) cameras, something that many would assume requires the largest possible apertures, given the low light conditions. But even though I have several f/1.4 lenses for this kind of photography, I mostly shoot at f/2.8 or f/4, largely because of the too-narrow DOF issue.
p.3 #9 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
A mid-tele 1:1 macro or, even better, a lens like the Rodenstock 105 Digaron that gives variable magnifications and maintains a flat field (and doesn't cost $7k).
p.3 #10 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
RoamingScott wrote:
I wouldn't want anything much faster than 1.7 on GF. Ever played with the Mitakon? That paper-thin slice of DOF can be infuriating sometimes. I'd much rather have a 1.7 lens that hits focus the vast majority of the time with autofocus.
I don't agree in this case because my fast adapted lenses (Tamron 35mm 1.8, Tamron 85mm 1.8, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Sigma 105mm 1.4, Canon 200mm f/2, Canon 300mm 2.8) all seem to be fast and sharp enough, and when they hit I love the images. They all focus better on my other cameras and they don't seem any worse than the 55mm 1.7. In fact, the motors seem to move faster than what's in the 55mm 1.7. I think the issue is the Fuji tech and not some inherent issue with going faster than 1.7.
p.3 #11 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Remember that DOF is already smaller at a given aperture on a larger format like mniMF, so you don’t really need the same largest apertures here to get the same effect.
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format....Show more →
Correct. And to help provide context I am a fan of my 1.2 lenses on full-frame and also my adapted 1.4 lenses (85mm, 105mm Sigma Art) that seem to cover the whole image circle. The two provide a similar look in terms of DoF, but I much prefer the 4x3 ratio of the GFX sensor. I also would like the larger GFX platform to provide more control over DoF (to go shallower) vs. a lighter FF system. To me that just makes sense when I could choose either one.
p.3 #14 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Remember that DOF is already smaller at a given aperture on a larger format like mniMF, so you don’t really need the same largest apertures here to get the same effect.
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format....Show more →
There is a lot more to large sensors than just more resolution. You gain more dynamic range and color depth at base ISO. You gain more latitude to crop. These are things that can benefit your shooting even if you aren't on a tripod, and in fact the gain in latitude to crop I would think would primarily benefit hand held photography.
p.3 #15 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
[...]
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
Wouldn't the effect from camera shake from shooting handheld depend on the pixel pitch? In which case the GFX would be easier to shoot handheld than a X-T5, and about the same as a Sony A7rv. Or am I missing something here?
p.3 #16 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
mranger211 wrote:
Wouldn't the effect from camera shake from shooting handheld depend on the pixel pitch? In which case the GFX would be easier to shoot handheld than a X-T5, and about the same as a Sony A7rv. Or am I missing something here?
It depends if you examine your output at 100% magnification or not. If you do, then yes pixel pitch will matter. If you equalize the images by making them the same size and downsizing the higher pixel pitch images to the same number of pixels as the lower pixel pitch image the images will look pretty similar.
I see no reason for GFX images to be more susceptible to camera shake when handholding than any other images with any format size with the possible exception that the gear might be a bit heavier and therefore a bit harder to hand hold.
p.3 #17 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Steve Spencer wrote:
It depends if you examine your output at 100% magnification or not. If you do, then yes pixel pitch will matter. If you equalize the images by making them the same size and downsizing the higher pixel pitch images to the same number of pixels as the lower pixel pitch image the images will look pretty similar.
I see no reason for GFX images to be more susceptible to camera shake when handholding than any other images with any format size with the possible exception that the gear might be a bit heavier and therefore a bit harder to hand hold....Show more →
Shutter slap on GFX was a concern in the early days, and some of the more neurotic among us here swear that a tripod is still necessary because of it.
Pixel pitch is only part of the equation, the other is how good is the IBIS. The Sony A7R4 is worse for handholding than the GFX 100Sii for instance...even though they have identical pixel size, the IBIS on the GFX is worlds better and requires a less aggressive version of the reciprocal rule than the Sony.
p.3 #18 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
mranger211 wrote:
Your point about zooms (sort of) targeting landscape photographers makes sense, especially since the higher sensor resolution of the 100MP miniMF sensor doesn’t really give you its full potential when you shoot handheld, and many (most?) serious landscape photographers take a great deal of care to ensure camera stability by using tripods.
My sense is that if you are doing handheld photography of the sort that might call for f/2.8 (or even f/2) zooms on full-frame, that you aren’t likely to gain a lot by going to the larger format.
If you were comparing two systems using the same format and aspect ratio, then the pixel pitch would tell you the maximum sensor resolution. (So would the number of pixels overall and, consequently, the pixel dimensions.)
It isn't quite that simple when you are comparing different format sizes. Let's say (for the moment ignoring the complication of differing aspect ratios) that you have "normal" focal length lenses on both systems so that you get the same angle of view. Let's say that one system is a 60MP FF system and the other is a 100MP miniMF system.
A given amount of blur (e.g. width across the frame) will span more pixels on the 100MP miniMF system. That does NOT mean that the miniMF system is "blurrier" — the amount of blur in equal size prints from the two systems would be identical. What id does mean is that in order to take full advantage of the potential resolution advantage of the larger format you need to ensure even greater camera stability than you would on the smaller system. The optimum is likely to be using a tripod* and a remote release, using EFCS, and turning IBIS off. (The last point may or may not make a difference, but it won't hurt.)
There's no sharpness disadvantage to the larger system (assuming that things like shutter "slap" and similar have an equal effect), but you reduce or potentially negate the possible advantage it offers if you don't up your game regarding stability.
(Resolution is not the only potential pus of the larger sensor — for example, the "grain" of the image will be smaller on the 100MP system, potentially giving some advantage with things like the visibility of noise and smooth gradients at very large reproduction sizes, though these pluses are probably pretty small.)
Anyway, all of that flowed from a different point that I was making, namely that I feel that getting the largest possible aperture out of potential GFX long zoom lenses is probably less important than it might be on FF systems, for several reasons: you get comparable DOF at smaller apertures on miniMF anyway, the weight and bulk can be reduced, the cost can be less, and I'd argue that at this point most of the kinds of photography that require extra-large aperture long zooms are done as well or better on FF.
* For some kinds of photography the tripod has advantages beyond just camera stability. By holding the camera in a fixed position it ensures accurate framing. (It is quite difficult to make multiple handheld shots without moving the camera.) It also makes it easier to access and adjust manual camera settings without "losing" the framing. Obviously, for other kinds of photography the tripod is more of a burden than an advantage...
p.3 #19 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
RoamingScott wrote:
Shutter slap on GFX was a concern in the early days, and some of the more neurotic among us here swear that a tripod is still necessary because of it.
Pixel pitch is only part of the equation, the other is how good is the IBIS. The Sony A7R4 is worse for handholding than the GFX 100Sii for instance...even though they have identical pixel size, the IBIS on the GFX is worlds better and requires a less aggressive version of the reciprocal rule than the Sony.
I never tried testing my a7R V against my GFX100s II, but I do think the a7R V's IBIS is better than my a7R III.
).