gdanmitchell
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion Thread | |
RustyBug wrote:
chez wrote:
SrMi wrote:
jj1804 wrote:
tuomkok wrote:
(...) although it kind of defeats the idea of having a hagh resolution camera. (...)
Counterpoint - the idea about having a high MP, fixed lens, compact camera is to be able to crop to your hearts desire. It makes the camera that much more usable for different scenarios and I feel like that's kind of the whole point of cameras like the 100RF or the Leica Q3 / 43. The larger the sensor and the more pixel, the better the resulting image quality of the crops. Leica Q3 and Q343 go even further than the 100RF offering even 5MP files at the longest "focal length". Remember that instagram is 1MP and most smartphones have a resolution lower than 3MP, where most of the images online ultimately get viewed on.
@robsonj@@@@ If you need 50+MP at 80mm in 65x24 mode the 100RF is the wrong camera for you - look at the GFX then.
TINSTAAFL.
While I may crop in post, I never shoot while intending to crop. Cropping reduces DR; it is similar to shooting with a smaller sensor. If I shoot with Q or RF, I'd like to use the sensor to its full and frame accordingly.
Most scenes out there do not require the full dynamic range of the RF.
Especially if the main use is "story telling" ... a good story doesn't give a rat's backside about trivial technical differences and a great story can even survive totally trashed / junk technical matters.
Understanding the use case of "cropping" as an intentional part of the strategic EDC / compactness / simplicity ... means understanding that a decision was made to forego maximum technical capability, in exchange for a higher degree of deployment to immerse yourself into the story telling realm.
I was thinking about my Kodak DCS SLR/C ... it had no AA filter and back then folks were telling me all the problems with the moire issues and the lack of DR compared to some other rigs. Yet, those two issues never stopped me from getting my shots and really liking that camera (only real downside was one trick pony at base iso).
In the realm of quality / technical matters, folks have to take a step back and ask themselves if the level that the "issues" present keep them from achieving their goals to get the shot / tell the story. On a different realm, it also reminds me of the OM film system ... dang small lenses, but they vignette quite a bit. Backpackers, adventurers dug on it, vignetting be danged.
When we pit size vs. technical and maximum quality, it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS going to have some form of quid pro quo issues for consideration. Should we consider to understand what / when / where / why / how those tradeoffs exist ... certainly. Does that fact that they exist mitigate its utility ... only to the degree that we allow it to thwart us.
I understand that I'm critically looking at it's native technical lens capabilities ... wrt distortion in particular. But, in the realm of understanding what it is / isn't, that gives me understanding for recognizing (and the accepting vs. rejecting) the attributes and determining how it fits my use case ... 100%, 99%, 50%, 2% ... and my tolerances for the gaps it might include.
Bottom line, if you truly want to tell the story, you aren't gonna give a rat's a$$ about how much DR reduction exists from a crop ... and let such trivial considerations interfere with your mindset for seeing the story. That's kinda the point of the camera is to relinquish your mind from a variety of trivial considerations (accepting their limitations and discarding your concerns of them), so you can get to the matter of the importance of the story, not the trivial bench jockey minutia.
I'm a techno junkie ... but, I'd like to still recognize the difference between when techno is important vs. when it is critical vs. when it is trivial ... and should be considered as an impediment / limitation vs. when it should be ignored as trivial minutia. Not saying I always get it right, nor figure it out as quickly as others ... but, yeah, there's a point when folks ( self included at times) can absolutely get lost in the forest of minutia, and can't find their way to a good photograph for stumbling over MTF and DR charts.
And, yes ... I'm talking to myself, too. 
YMMV
As someone who always promotes the value of content and photographic vision over the pursuit of test-based technical record chasing, I’m somewhat sympathetic to your point of view.
However, in this case, a (the?) major point of using the larger 102MP sensor is ostensibly to achieve various kinds of technical image quality superiority over smaller formats.
You can “tell the story” effectively with a wide range of photographic equipment, including pretty much any Fujifilm camera, along with virtually any camera from the other manufacturers. If it is just a smaller, fixed lens camera that you want and the technical pluses aren’t so important after all…
|
