rbf_
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion Thread | |
RustyBug wrote:
chez wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
chez wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote:
RoamingScott wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote:The X2D with its leaf shutter lenses is similar, but the camera is pretty big and the lenses put more weight out front. I think with the 100RF it won't be too difficult to shoot at slower shutter speeds.
The proof is in the pudding with the many excellent low-light samples out there already. Small minds think small thoughts.
I've been shooting the M11 with the electronic shutter, so essentially the same thing as the 100RF – same pixel pitch and no shutter shock. I'm good to about 1/125 sec. Any lower, and I just take three shots, and one is always good. The 100RF looks easier to hold than the M11, though. I'm thinking I could probably do 1/30 sec. if I pay attention 
+1
I used to be good to about 1/15, maybe 1/8 ... with concentrated technique on my old FE (yeah, I know).
But, I think the salient point here is to NOT FORGET that even if you need to keep your SS a bit higher, you've got a TON of headroom in your ISO. I mean, two stops from 1/30 to 1/125 "ain't nuttin" for a bump in ISO.
And, yes ... a leaf shutter is so much smoother (radial, counterbalancing forces acting like a mini-gyroscope) than a focal plane curtain, that whatever you can do with a focal plane shutter ... you can naturally do slower with a leaf shutter.
Yep, with today’s high iso abilities in the sensors coupled with great noise removal software, I would think I could easily work around low light senarios.
Yeah, and then there's that silly little thing called a tripod.
The one thing that has me looking at this (vs. Q) is the long exposure capability of the Fuji. While that's a niche genre for some, the Q taps out much sooner than the Fuji. In that regard, the Fuji has additional capability. Again, niche ... but, if you're a long exposure shooter, the MF (Hassy or Fuji) is nice. Wherer IBIS comes into play is the ability to skip the tripod in a lot of scenarios ... but, true long exposure, IBIS doesn't do anything for ya.
I also find the subjects that I shoot don’t typically sit still so I usually am shooting at higher shutter speeds which would make ibis less useful for me. I definitely would take it if it was available, but it’s not a deal breaker for me.
Yeah, I think if one takes inventory of what they are shooting ... and putting it into "categories", the lack of IBIS isn't as "all encompassing" as it might seem.
That said, I did take first notice of when I got a short tele without OIS in a DSLR, and realized I'd need to bring up my ISO / SS a bit. Here, with a 35 (28-ish), that relationship isn't as dependent on stabilization is it becomes with the longer glass. I'd suggest the decisions involved here were thought through ... to fit the pieces of the puzzle within a given context ... rather, than trying to be a "fit for all" tool.
I think those who find this tool well suited to them will be pleased by it. Others that aren't oriented within its context will likely find it an "Easy Pass". 
I agree with regards to the fact the single fixed focal length @35mm makes IBIS much less of an issue to me than for say a general MILC body that could have any lens attached. In fact I've seen same bad results with wide angle lenses when I've left IBIS on when I did not really need it (18mm on X system or around 28mm FF equiv). I'm somewhat new to IBIS and still learning its quirks. It seems that IBIS cannot keep both the center and corners sharp at really wide angles. Over at DPR the cutoff for who you might encounter/notice this is generally thought to be around the diagonal of the sensor, which is 55mm for the GFX. So I think it matter a lot less for people interested in this camera than it might seem at first glance.
I do agree this camera is probably an easy pass for many. I think probably all fixed lens cameras probably fall into that category to some degree.
|
