fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3      
4
       5       …       7       8       end
   

What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
  
 
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


gdanmitchell wrote:
The point here isn't that there is more or less blur with a 100MP sensor system. In fact (if you think about how digital imaging works) there's no more or less blur from a given degree of instability.

The point is that the potential resolution advantage of the higher MP sensor is not as likely to be realized when shooting handheld, and that if you are most shooting that way (with some arguable exceptions) that FF body would probably produce results that are essentially as good.

Also, the issue in this case would not be pixel pitch. it would be the number...Show more →

But as I pointed out above what you say is only true about resolution. The dynamic range, color depth, and greater ability to crop advantages of the larger sensor would remain. So there are good reasons you might prefer the larger sensor even if you are handholding.
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:43 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #2 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


RoamingScott wrote:
I've heard the V IBIS was much improved over the III/IV.

It is.
Aug 21, 2025 at 08:05 PM
SGinNorcal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · 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 was under the impression that shutter slap is something that occurs when using a tripod, not handheld. I've only experienced it at long FL, slow shutter, and travel tripod mounted which seems to be a worst case scenario.
Aug 21, 2025 at 11:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Steve Spencer wrote:
But as I pointed out above what you say is only true about resolution. The dynamic range, color depth, and greater ability to crop advantages of the larger sensor would remain. So there are good reasons you might prefer the larger sensor even if you are handholding.

I have acknowledged this...

1. The FF cameras we might compare to already have truly excellent DR, color depth, and ability to crop. The improvement in those areas from the larger sensor is measurable but very small. (Remember how small the increment of size difference between FF and miniMF actually is — about half the size of the difference between 1.5x APS-C and Ff.)

2. For the kinds of photography for which things like large aperture long zooms are required, the FF alternative is often going ot be a better trade off. For example, consider things like wildlife or sports photography where the added size and weight of the gear and the slower operation of the camera are downsides on the larger system. Here, the advantages don’t outweigh the disadvantages in very many cases, and excellent (and likely less costly) FF alternatives already work great.

3. While those other potential pluses (marginal though they may be in real world terms) are among the pluses of the larger sensor system, the biggest (and I’d say central) attraction is the higher resolution potential.

Again, my point here is that I think that there’s a bigger market for the longer zooms (whose non-existence has kept me from moving to miniMF) that don’t necessarily push the envelope of larger apertures.

YMMV.

- - -

SGinNorcal wrote:
I was under the impression that shutter slap is something that occurs when using a tripod, not handheld. I've only experienced it at long FL, slow shutter, and travel tripod mounted which seems to be a worst case scenario.

The way I look at it, it is arguably more of an issue when you are on the tripod, but it is a contextual thing.

Basically, when you are on the tripod you are quite likely looking to completely immobilize the camera, and having done that things like “shutter slap” (and, in the old days, DSLR “mirror slap”) are among the few remaining last bits of improvement available to you. And arguably they might be a bit more significant on the larger system since you are perhaps more likely to push the images to larger print sizes and because the larger mass of the shutter system could have a greater effect.

When shooting handheld you are necessarily giving up the potential of reliably perfect stability (you can be quite steady with care and practice and the right conditions, but not as steady as a ipod), and the small effect of “slap” is not such a bit deal when you’ve alreayd made that trade.
Aug 22, 2025 at 09:36 AM
SGinNorcal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Dan, for someone who suggests you would shoot Gfx if only there was a long telephoto, you sure spend a lot of time trying to convince us it would be pointless. I usually choose not to participate in format or brand wars because I don't care what others shoot. But you keep bringing up the whole "miniMF" thing and suggesting the size is not that much. If you look at actual area of the sensor, the difference from FF to Gfx is actually physically greater than it is from APSC to FF. It gets expressed at a percentage increase by those wanting to diminish the difference.
Regarding shutter slap, its worse on a tripod because you have no way to dampen the energy from the shutter movement and the tripod (in most cases) is not perfectly rigid. It can be worse than motion blur, that why we have Electronic Front Curtain options.
Aug 22, 2025 at 11:27 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


gdanmitchell wrote:
I have acknowledged this...

1. The FF cameras we might compare to already have truly excellent DR, color depth, and ability to crop. The improvement in those areas from the larger sensor is measurable but very small. (Remember how small the increment of size difference between FF and miniMF actually is — about half the size of the difference between 1.5x APS-C and Ff.)

2. For the kinds of photography for which things like large aperture long zooms are required, the FF alternative is often going ot be a better trade off. For example, consider things like wildlife or sports photography...Show more →

Is it really true that the differences in dynamic range between 44 X 33mm sensors and FF 35mm sensors (36 X 24mm) are small? Dynamic range, at least photographic dynamic range is something for which Bill Claff has provided us a lot of measurement. The max photographic dynamic ranges for the GFX 100 II is 12.55 stops. The maximum photographic dynamic range for my Sony A7r V (which has great dynamic range for a FF camera) is 11.69. A difference of .86 stops. Can that sort of difference in dynamic range ever matter in the real world? Coincidentally, I happen to have an example of a situation open on my desktop right now in which just that sort of difference in dynamic range makes to my eyes a quite noticeable real world difference.

I got married in Puerto Rico in early July. We go married on the little Island of Culebrita on a hillside above Flamenco beach, which was an absolutely gorgeous setting. The late afternoon tropical setting, however, made for some really harsh light with lots of dynamic range in the lighting. Our wedding photographer was my wife's sister. She is a great photographer with an MFA in photography and was a professional wedding photographer for 15 years. She shoots a Canon 5D MK IV, which coincidentally has a max photographic dynamic range of 10.83 stops, which coincidentally is also .86 stops less than my Sony A7r V (just like the Sony A7r V has .86 stops less max PDR than the Fuji 100 II). She did most of the shooting at the wedding, but I did take some shots (obviously not during the ceremony) partly because we wanted some shots with her in them as she was the wife's sister after all.

The first shot below was taken by my wife's sister with the Canon 5D MK IV. I like it a lot. It will definitely be part of our wedding album. The second shot taken just a minute or two later was taken by me with the Sony A7r V. To me the difference in dynamic range is obvious. I think the color is a lot nicer in the Sony shot too. And it just isn't these two photos. Across the whole set my wife noticed the difference and commented on it. She knows photography a bit--she was the photo editor of her high school yearbook--but she has not been anything but a casual cell phone photographer for years. This isn't to say that my wife's sister's photos aren't better. They are. There is a lot more to photography than dynamic range and color and she is a much better photographer than I am. Across the set of photos hers stand out for the compositions and the moments she captured. That matters more, but I would have loved for her to have a camera like mine and combine those skills with the better DR and color and although my camera looked better there was tons of room for my shots to capture more dynamic range. I have no doubts that you would see the same sorts of difference between my camera and a Fuji GFX 100 II or 100S II.

One last thing post-processing no doubt matters in this situation, but if anything my shots are handicapped by that. I am ok post-processing, but my sister-in-law is much better than me, so I don't think the differences that are noticeable are because of post-processing. And it is exactly these sorts of real world differences that might make someone want a GFX 100 II or 100S II over a FF 35mm camera.
Aug 22, 2025 at 11:53 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


A duple of things…

SGinNorcal wrote:
Dan, for someone who suggests you would shoot Gfx if only there was a long telephoto, you sure spend a lot of time trying to convince us it would be pointless. I usually choose not to participate in format or brand wars because I don't care what others shoot. But you keep bringing up the whole "miniMF" thing and suggesting the size is not that much. If you look at actual area of the sensor, the difference from FF to Gfx is actually physically greater than it is from APSC to FF. It gets expressed at a percentage increase by...Show more →

Regardless of how you measure it, the difference between miniMF and FF is about half the size of the difference between FF and APS-C 1.5x. That ain’t nothing, but it isn’t as big of a difference as some seem to think.

I actually spent some considerable time figuring out the differences. People sometimes correctly point out that miniMF has an area that is approximately 70% larger than FF. Now do the calculation to determine how much larger FF is on a percentage basis than 1.5x APS-C and you’ll see what I mean.

The smaller than 645 size of the 33x44 miniMF format is both its strength and its weakness. To start with the weakness, its size advantage over FF is only half that of the size advantage of 645 over 35mm, and 645 is the smallest of the film MF formats. So, it is bigger than FF but not by that much.

But that is also its advantage. It provides excellent image quality in a lens/body package that is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than digital sensor systems that are larger, a few of which are quite close to 645. So a company like fujifilm can actually produce cameras in this format at prices and in sizes (especially an issue with lenses) that have a broader market appeal.

As I have written countless times, miniMF provides some real, measurable improvements in various specs over FF. But it comes with some real downsides, too — size, speed of operation, cost, etc. It isn’t a slam dunk that one is “better” than the other — it is a matter of assessing the differences honestly and then considering their real world effect on one’s photography.

Speaking of my own personal photographic needs, for some of my photography I can see real world advantages from the larger system in terms of image quality potential. (My landscape photographs are virtually always shot from the tripod. Those subjects often don’t move a lot. I have a 44” printer.) However, there are some problems, too. First — as I’m mentioned many times here — is that I rely on long zoom lenses for a significant portion of my landscape photography, and those simply are not available from Fujifilm. If they were, I probably would already have bought into it for my landscape work. So, as I think you can see, the pluses of the larger format are counterbalanced, and then some, but issues like this for me. YMMV.

Regarding shutter slap, it’s worse on a tripod because you have no way to dampen the energy from the shutter movement and the tripod (in most cases) is not perfectly rigid. It can be worse than motion blur, that why we have Electronic Front Curtain options.

Is it really worse, or is that speculation? I haven’t seen anyone compare its effect on a tripod-mounted camera to its effect on a hand held camera. Have you? I’m sure that hands dampen the effect to some degree, but so does mounting the system to a solid tripod.

Buy my point was independent of that question — it is more about the significance of that one among several aspects that could affect camera stability. When shooting handheld, a major issue (far more significant than shutter vibration) is the fact that the camera is being hand held. Against that backdrop, the effect of shutter vibrations is very small and probably essentially insignificant. However, when the camera is solidly mounted on a tripod and activated with a remote release, small effects from things like shutter vibrations are all that is left to control stability even more.

YMMV.
Aug 22, 2025 at 11:58 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Steve Spencer wrote:
Is it really true that the differences in dynamic range between 44 X 33mm sensors and FF 35mm sensors (36 X 24mm) are small? Dynamic range, at least photographic dynamic range is something for which Bill Claff has provided us a lot of measurement. The max photographic dynamic ranges for the GFX 100 II is 12.55 stops. The maximum photographic dynamic range for my Sony A7r V (which has great dynamic range for a FF camera) is 11.69. A difference of .86 stops. Can that sort of difference in dynamic range ever matter in the real world? Coincidentally, I...Show more →

Steve, I’m going to try to keep this reply shorter. Let’s see if I can.

No camera has sufficient DR for all possibly photographic situations. If all else is equal (e.g. two camera are otherwise exactly identical in features and performance) then just about anyone would say, “sure, I’ll take more DR. Why not?”

But cameras already available in a range of formats already cap a true more DR that we’ll see in SOOC/jpg images. (E.g. you could lower exposure to avoid blowing out the bright sky, but you’d get an image with blocked shadows and other elements too dark.) So the real value of that extra DR is to those who post process.

And modern cameras, from the better APS-C to full frame to miniMF record useful image data across a very wide dynamic range. On top of that, features like the AI NR in Adobe products deals with noise in selectively boosted shadow areas (and even in grossly underexposed raw files) in pretty astoundingly effective ways. (If you haven’t tried this, I’ll happily post some examples.)

The DR issues was a really big deal maybe a decade or so ago, when cameras were much more limited in terms of DR and noise performance than they are now. I recall worrying about shooting at ISO 200 or 400 on my old Canon 5D, but today I regularly shoot at much higher levels. In any case, back then getting a one or two stop improvement in DR was more significant — today it is nice if you have it but not the same kind of issue it used to be. (Same with noise — early on we dealt with not only bad noise at base ISO but also with a whole lot of chroma noise, not just luminosity noise.)

Here’s one example of the rather astonishing amount of image data we can coax out of our files — and this comes from a camera that was released over a decade ago!
Aug 22, 2025 at 12:16 PM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


gdanmitchell wrote:
A duple of things…

Regardless of how you measure it, the difference between miniMF and FF is about half the size of the difference between FF and APS-C 1.5x. That ain’t nothing, but it isn’t as big of a difference as some seem to think.

I actually spent some considerable time figuring out the differences. People sometimes correctly point out that miniMF has an area that is approximately 70% larger than FF. Now do the calculation to determine how much larger FF is on a percentage basis than 1.5x APS-C and you’ll see what I mean.

The smaller than 645 size...Show more →

Coming from someone who shoots landscapes with both the Sony a7R V and GFX100S II, if long telephoto zoom landscapes are your jam....then it probably makes sense to go with something like the a7R V. Or run dual system 44x33 and FF, but then you'd probably have to give up your APS-C, which I suspect you wouldn't want to do. (Or run 3 systems.....)

And in terms of DR, there probably isn't going to be much progression in prints. But even today you can show more than 8 bit JPEG DR on displays that can support it. That of course may be no interest to you, but that side is evolving.
Aug 22, 2025 at 12:17 PM
SGinNorcal
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #10 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


edit: This is response to Dan's post #7
So you are saying percentage increase matters more than actual area increase then? I'm pretty sure my eyes see actual size, not a comparison of what they have seen before. Area increase from APSC to FF - 495 sq.mm, FF to Gfx - 579 sq. mm. I'm not arguing with your conclusions, but just say you don't see the difference. No need to convert to percentage increase so the math appears in your favor.
I have experienced shutter slap on my Gfx as I described. Its is so strange looking, I wanted to better understand it and did some research. Its simply vibration with nowhere to go on a tripod. Unless you made the camera body more robust, bolting it to concrete is not going to help. I assume that why Fuji went with EFC to reduce vibration instead of adding mass to the camera.


Edited on Aug 22, 2025 at 03:59 PM · View previous versions
Aug 22, 2025 at 12:26 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

olegkin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


- GF35-70 with an aperture ring, and constant wide side aperture. Make it f/5.6 across the range and keep it compact.
- A compact GF35/2.8
- GF63 that does not fall apart
- Dramatically faster focusing lenses across the range
- Lenses with a leaf shutter to improve flash sync speed

GFX has a plenty of room to grow.
Aug 22, 2025 at 01:12 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve, I’m going to try to keep this reply shorter. Let’s see if I can.

No camera has sufficient DR for all possibly photographic situations. If all else is equal (e.g. two camera are otherwise exactly identical in features and performance) then just about anyone would say, “sure, I’ll take more DR. Why not?”

But cameras already available in a range of formats already cap a true more DR that we’ll see in SOOC/jpg images. (E.g. you could lower exposure to avoid blowing out the bright sky, but you’d get an image with blocked shadows and other elements too dark.) So...Show more →

Sorry Dan. You may have kept your response fairly short, but you also basically ignored my post. I know what post processing can and cannot do. I gave a real example of a wedding photographer who shot a wedding in the last month who could have benefitted from increased DR in a not too atypical wedding scenario. What you did post might be relevant to a landscape photographer, but you didn't apply what you wrote thoughtfully to the scenario that I raised in my post.

Sure the wedding photographer could have exposed only for the highlights, brought up the shadows extensively in post, used noise reduction on those shadows after they were raised and extensively processed the hundreds of shots for the wedding. Did you even think about the implications of that for a wedding photographer and how many extra hours that would add to their wedding shoot? Is that really a viable way to shoot weddings? On top of that the images that the photographer might want to review to see if they got the shot they wanted would all be dark and poor guides to whether they captured people the way they want to capture people. Simply put, your model of how to handle DR in this situation, IMO, is a really dumb and economically unfeasible model for a wedding photographer. In this specific case, I would never ask my sister-in-law to put in nearly that amount of work for our wedding photos. What you propose is possible but highly unpractical. What would be practical is using a camera with higher DR and avoiding as much of that post processing as possible from the hundreds of images from the wedding and shooting in a way that does not inhibit the reviewing of shots during the process.

So, unfortunately you missed the point of my post totally and went off on a rant that was not relevant to the wedding photography example that I raised at all. Sure it is relevant for you landscape work, but not for the situation that I raised and that was my point. That other types of photography could really benefit from some to the things that 44 X 33 sensor provide beside resolution. You seem to only be able to think about things through you landscape photography lens and fail to appreciate that other photographers may have different needs, like being able to review their images while shooting and not having time to extensively post-process a large amount of files.
Aug 22, 2025 at 02:40 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


gdanmitchell wrote:
A duple of things…

Regardless of how you measure it, the difference between miniMF and FF is about half the size of the difference between FF and APS-C 1.5x. That ain’t nothing, but it isn’t as big of a difference as some seem to think.

YMMV.


My mileage does vary. I shoot both FF 35mm and APS-C cameras in 4 X 3 mode almost all the time. Shooting in this mode means the FF 35mm sensor in my use is really 32 X 24 and has an area of 764 squared mm. The APS-C sensor shot the way I use it really is 20.8mm X 15.6mm and has an area of 325 squared mm. Using a consistent 4 X 3 aperture ratio in this way, the size of the crop factor from APS-C to FF 35mm is 1.53 and the size of the crop factor from FF 35mm to 44 X 33 is 1.37. These are the numbers that matter to me as they are the way I actually use the cameras and the difference between APS-C and FF is nowhere close to twice as big as the difference between FF 35mm and 44 X 33. They really aren't that much difference in size at all. They are closer to being the same distance apart than the APS-C to FF difference being twice as large. This matches my experience as well.
Aug 22, 2025 at 04:12 PM
GregS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Sorry, many of these posts are TLDR. But as someone who has shot M43, APSC (Fuji), FF (Nikon and, most recently, Sony), and GFX (currently with the 100ii), the answer is painfully clear -- you run three systems:

1. iPhone (or whatever smartphone you're using)
2. FF with a body that has great AF
3. Medium format (GFX, or, if you're loaded or a studio pro, PhaseOne)

And pick your lenses for FF and MF based on how you'll use each system.

Problem solved! You're welcome.


Aug 22, 2025 at 04:27 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Seems a lot of people are missing one of the largest benefits of a larger sensor: The fact that you collect the same amount of light per shutter speed at a smaller aperture. Which means lesser aberrations from the lens. Especially if you design the lens with a smaller max aperture.


Aug 23, 2025 at 01:44 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


GregS wrote:
Sorry, many of these posts are TLDR. But as someone who has shot M43, APSC (Fuji), FF (Nikon and, most recently, Sony), and GFX (currently with the 100ii), the answer is painfully clear -- you run three systems:

1. iPhone (or whatever smartphone you're using)
2. FF with a body that has great AF
3. Medium format (GFX, or, if you're loaded or a studio pro, PhaseOne)

And pick your lenses for FF and MF based on how you'll use each system.

Problem solved! You're welcome.

This thread wasn't supposed to be about whether and when to use 44 X 33 mm sensor cameras. I know a lot of the posts were TLDR for you, but the thread was supposed to be about what lenses people would like to see for the GFX cameras.

Your summary isn't a bad one for a lot of people on which format to use. Personally, I can't stand using a phone for taking photos, so I use an APS-C camera for travel and as a daily carry in place of your #1.

The question of which format to use came up when discussing which lenses Fuji should make for the GFX cameras because some would like lenses for landscapes primarily and others would like fast zooms and primes. Should Fuji make all of these types of lenses or just some of them for the GFX? That is the more basic question related to the topic of the thread. Just what uses should Fuji build the GFX system to handle well? I have argued landscapes: yes, portraits: yes, and events: yes, but sports and wildlife: not so much. Other types of photography we have discussed not much. Perhaps you want to weigh in on that or lenses you would like to see.
Aug 23, 2025 at 06:14 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


Makten wrote:
Seems a lot of people are missing one of the largest benefits of a larger sensor: The fact that you collect the same amount of light per shutter speed at a smaller aperture. Which means lesser aberrations from the lens. Especially if you design the lens with a smaller max aperture.

Good point. I agree that a primary benefit of larger sensors is that you collect more light with the same size entrance pupil (i.e., aperture opening) and the same shutter speed or you can have a smaller entrance pupil (and the same shutter speed and still collect the same amount of light, which as you say let's you use the same amount of light with a smaller aperture opening and therefore typically less aberrations. It is simply a lot easier to design a lens with a smaller entrance pupil. That advantage is offset by the lens having to be built with a larger image circle, but the smaller entrance pupil required by larger sensor camera is an advantage nonetheless.


Aug 23, 2025 at 06:28 AM
GregS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #18 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?




Steve Spencer wrote:
This thread wasn't supposed to be about whether and when to use 44 X 33 mm sensor cameras. I know a lot of the posts were TLDR for you, but the thread was supposed to be about what lenses people would like to see for the GFX cameras.

Your summary isn't a bad one for a lot of people on which format to use. Personally, I can't stand using a phone for taking photos, so I use an APS-C camera for travel and as a daily carry in place of your #1.

The question of which format to use came...Show more →

I did weigh in on lenses - back on page 3…before it devolved into a format war.


Aug 23, 2025 at 10:41 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?


GregS wrote:
“…format war.”

Hyperbole much? ;-)
Aug 23, 2025 at 11:03 AM
GregS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #20 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?




gdanmitchell wrote:
Hyperbole much? ;-)

MiniMF much?
Aug 23, 2025 at 12:51 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5       …       7       8       end
FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       …       7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register