gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #20 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses? | |
Makten wrote:
For the thousandth time, there are other variables than resolution. Rendering, DOF and lots of other things can easily be seen at fairly small sizes. Yes, even on a computer screen.
BTW, this is a good example of where better DR would make a difference. The old 50 mpix sensor is great, but there are better.
And no, I'm not interested in awards. 
To understand my response, read the OP’s reply. Then understand why even those “other things” that you go on about may seem irrelevant to his needs.
- - -
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I use both Sony 35mm sensor cameras and Fujifilm “larger than 35mm” sensor cameras. Sensor technology have gotten so good that it really doesn’t matter.
If you need to eke out every bit of the dynamic range to get a great picture, than you really need to work on your exposure technique in the first place.
The reviews showing recovery in extreme cases is just that, a technical readout, not a real life scenario. Who messes up that much, that often?
By the way, the Fujifilm sensor format is not medium format. It’s not even large enough to match 645 film, which is the smallest medium format film.
Even Fujifilm calls it “Larger than full frame”....Show more →
There are some people some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number.
While there is no question that the larger sensors can measure “higher” on various tests than smaller sensors if all else is equal (it rarely is, BTW), the quality level from today’s smaller (e.g. FF) sensors is remarkable, especially when they are used with good technique and good lenses.
A number of my photographic friends/colleagues came out of the West Coast large format photography school. (E.g. they were literally Ansel Adams protégés.) At this point all but one of them has left LF and even MF film behind. (One has not, but he has a long history of monochrome film work and there’s no reason for him to leave e that behind.* One moved to a ridiculously expensive Phase One back system perhaps 15 years ago, then to a Pentax 645z (briefly) and then to Fujifilm GFX. Every one of the others now uses, essentially exclusively, full frame digital systems. (I know of one who uses both FF and Fujifilm GFX. (These are all folks whose work regularly hangs at the Ansel Adams Gallery.)
The added DR is rarely significant. There are three situations relative to DR. First, and most common, the scene’s DR is easily handled by any current high quality camera. The second most common is that the DR is too great for ANY contemporary camera. The third situation is least likely: The DR of the scene exceeds one camera’s capability but not another’s — the delta between the two is actually pretty small. (And, as we know, DR is not a “hard limit.” The responsive essentially rolls off as noise increases.)
And, yes, those who imagine that the GFX format and that of cameras using similar sensors is equivalent to old school film MF are forgetting that these modern larger-than-full-frame formats are not as large as 645, the smallest of the traditional medium formats. (GFX lies midway between FF and 645… and is obviously nowhere near as large as the “6 by…” film formats (6x7, etc.) used by the serious MF film photographers back in the day. (Few want to think about the fact that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF…
As for what the call the format, virtually every manufacturer has engaged in confusing or misleading nomenclature. The first offender was Pentax, who named their cameras using the 33x44mm sensors the “645” system. Those numbers are utterly meaningless in this context and, in fact, misleading. Fujifilm has used all kinds of descriptions: “large format” (God help us!), “larger” (or “fuller”) than full frame, medium format, “GFX,” and probably others.
I refer to it as “miniMF” — I’m not alone — to acknowledge both that it is a “medium format” (if that includes anything larger than full frame) and a “mini” version of it, given its smaller size.
The most logical naming would be to use the sensor size and call it 33 x 44 — which we could say as “thirty three forty four.”
Now, wasn’t that fun? ;-)
* Though one time I met him and his wife, also a well-regarded photographer, in the Sierra backcountry. What with MF film cameras, tons of film, extra lenses, large tripods, and so forth, each of them was struggling down the trail with about 35 pounds (!!!) of camera gear in addition to their backpacking equipment.
|
