Fuji GFX vs SL

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, hoppyman said:

It seems an odd comparison overall to me. Well the original poster had said that he had only taken a couple of snaps with the Fuji in store so it was about first handling impressions/ opinions I guess. I have never seen one. I would think they are competing with the baby Hasselblad rather than any full frame 35mm camera though.

 

The more recent video reviews are targeted specifically at FF. They are pointing out how 35mm was the amateur's format before digital. They are comparing the aspect ratios, pointing out that the 4:5 / 4x3 format is more visually pleasing, has less wasted area cropped in post processing, etc etc. 

The price point is meant to undercut the SL's market rather specifically. The UI has been drastically altered from the consumer grade UI to be more similar to the SL with the option of customer programming of buttons and functions; very SL-like. 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Brian C in Az

[hhn360]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Actually you’ll probably be surprised to know that one reason you don’t encounter much dust is that Fuji placed a 9mm gap between the cover glass and sensor on the GFX so that any dust is less visible....

https://fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/gfx-technologies-2/

Jeff

Thanks for the reference.  

This is an awesome feature.  I have no hesitation changing lenses with the GFX unlike with my other camera systems where I often had multiple bodies of the same camera (like 4 D810s) and mated a single lens to each camera and never changed them to avoid dust issues.  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[PeterGA]

5 hours ago, hhn360 said:

Honestly, I don't know how much the SL system would add to your repertoire if you already own the GFX.  If you want a more compact body than the GFX 50S, I would consider the GFX 50R.  

I prefer the GF 110 over the SL 90 for sure, not that there is much to complain about with the 90.  The GF 110 is on my GFX about 75% of the time; I really love the look from this lens (I love it that much that I own 2 copies of it).  It is super sharp even at f2, has that medium format rendering, and is easy to use (handling).  

The SL 75 though is unique and something that Fuji doesn't offer.  In fact, I can't think of any manufacturer that has a 75 mm prime with autofocus.  For me, it's perfect for full length (body) portraits when I don't have have enough space to back up to use the 110/90. I am not a 50 mm shooter, finding it too problematic with distortion for my usage.  For my use the only additive benefit of the SL is the 75 mm lens.

On other thing to consider - I believe the GFX has some sort of sensor covering whereby I've never encountered dust on the sensor.  It's so liberating to use a digital camera without having dust issues.  On the other hand, the SL sensor is a dust magnetic.  Sure you can clean it, but it's one less annoyance. 

Hasselblad's 90 f 1.7 for the XID is very nice and a close approximation  - but I too really like the 110/2 on the GFX - special.

[jrp]

7 hours ago, hhn360 said:

I prefer the GF 110 over the SL 90 for sure, not that there is much to complain about with the 90.  The GF 110 is on my GFX about 75% of the time; I really love the look from this lens (I love it that much that I own 2 copies of it).  It is super sharp even at f2, has that medium format rendering, and is easy to use (handling).  

The 90mm is as good as it gets in FF.  Why do you prefer the 100mm?

[Chaemono]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb hhn360:

I prefer the GF 110 over the SL 90 for sure, not that there is much to complain about with the 90.  The GF 110 is on my GFX about 75% of the time; I really love the look from this lens (I love it that much that I own 2 copies of it).  It is super sharp even at f2, has that medium format rendering, and is easy to use (handling).  

 

Some RAF files here https://www.photographyblog.com/previews/fujifilm_gfx_50r_photos with the 110, all the way down women at food tasting event or the guy with the apron.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Chaemono

[hhn360]

6 hours ago, jrp said:

The 90mm is as good as it gets in FF.  Why do you prefer the 100mm?

Images 2-9 in this gallery were taken with the GFX 110.  I love the way it renders.

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Bridal-Fashion/

The first 2 images in the gallery were taken with the Nikon 105 f1.4 adapted to the SL.  That’s my 2nd favorite lens but I had to use an ND filter because of the lack of HSS.  The 110 GF is my 3rd favorite portrait lens.  My favorite is the Nikon 200 f2.  There are 2 images in that gallery taken with the 200 mm.

[Glacier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, hhn360 said:

Honestly, I don't know how much the SL system would add to your repertoire if you already own the GFX.  If you want a more compact body than the GFX 50S, I would consider the GFX 50R.  

I prefer the GF 110 over the SL 90 for sure, not that there is much to complain about with the 90.  The GF 110 is on my GFX about 75% of the time; I really love the look from this lens (I love it that much that I own 2 copies of it).  It is super sharp even at f2, has that medium format rendering, and is easy to use (handling).  

The SL 75 though is unique and something that Fuji doesn't offer.  In fact, I can't think of any manufacturer that has a 75 mm prime with autofocus.  For me, it's perfect for full length (body) portraits when I don't have have enough space to back up to use the 110/90. I am not a 50 mm shooter, finding it too problematic with distortion for my usage.  For my use the only additive benefit of the SL is the 75 mm lens.

On other thing to consider - I believe the GFX has some sort of sensor covering whereby I've never encountered dust on the sensor.  It's so liberating to use a digital camera without having dust issues.  On the other hand, the SL sensor is a dust magnetic.  Sure you can clean it, but it's one less annoyance. 

Great perspectives, thanks for sharing. 

> Honestly, I don't know how much the SL system would add to your repertoire if you already own the GFX. 

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted your views on, considering you own both

[otto.f]

On 12/11/2018 at 8:47 AM, Vieri said:

As you know, I agree with you generally on this. However, there are situations where more resolution is of help:

1. Using image ratios other than the native 3:2. To better show you what I mean, I prepared this little table to compare "existing" cameras (leaving the Fuji 100 Mp aside for now):

SL, 24Mp, 6000x4000px:
3:2, 24Mp - 4:3, 21,33 Mp - 5:4, 20 Mp - 16:9, 20,25 Mp - 2:1, 18 Mp - 3:1, 12 Mp

X1D or GFX, 50Mp, 8272x6200 (X1D):
3:2, 45,62 Mp - 4:3, 51,29 Mp - 5:4, 48,05 Mp - 16:9, 38,49 Mp - 2:1, 34,21 - 3:1, 22,81 Mp

With the 50 Mp, 4:3 native sensor, you can use any format ratio you wish, and still have enough resolution for a large print. With the 24 Mp, much less so: even with the 4:3 disadvantage in panoramic ratios, as Peter said, the more you go panoramic the more the SL's 24 Mp start to become a little too few for large prints, while the 50 Mp 4:3 sensor still holds up pretty well: in 3:1, you still have the same resolution you'd have with a 3:2 SL's image.

2. When cropping is needed to make up for something, i.e. lack of longer focal lenses in the bag. Say you only have the 24-90mm with you, but you'd need a 135mm for a particular image. Cropping will save the composition, but to still get a large print you'll need more than 24 Mp. Not often needed, perhaps, but having more Mp allows for a little more flexibility (and lets you leave that long lens home).

About computing power, I used 80 Mp digital backs back in the day, when computers were much less powerful than they are today. I had a top of the line (back then) Mac, without any problems. If you use a laptop computer, this might be an issue (not with the last generation Mac Book Pros, but these are expensive), but with a desktop computer I don't see the problem.

Same goes for HDD storage space: since you don't need SSD drives for storage (in fact, I wouldn't recommend them for reliability), and since you can buy 6 TB HDD for a bit more than 100 US (in the 5400 RPM flavour) or little less than 200 US (in the 7200 RPM flavour) that is a non-issue for me as well.

So, I think it boils down to this:

Do you print large?

If you do, there is a point in going 50 Mp, not sure about 100 Mp though. See here: https://www.scantips.com/calc.html for a size / resolution calculator. I think that the 300 Dpi is not a necessity (plus it really depends on the native resolution of each printer), and IMHO 200 Dpi is good enough for large prints: so, if you need to print 1 mt x 75 cm, which I do often, at 200 Dpi you'd need 46 Mp. I print my SL files that big, and they look great, but it takes some care in the post-processing and print preparation - more Mp would definitely make that easier.

If you don't, and just display your images on screens, then 24 Mp is not just enough - is more than enough for now, if you consider that 5K resolution is 14 Mp, 8K resolution is 33 Mp and is currently the highest available.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

On 12/11/2018 at 11:19 AM, thighslapper said:

Hi Vieri ....

I was more concerned with 100mpx ...... which to me does seem to be well beyond the needs of most photographers.

It looks like we will all end up with 50mpx by default within the next few years .... unless we specifically choose to sacrifice resolution for extended high ISO performance or enhanced video. 

That extra headroom in processing with more pixels would be useful at times as long as it comes with no penalties. To be honest I'd prefer extended dynamic range and better noise performance over more pixels, but if both come together I wouldn't grumble. 

However, the resolving power of the human eye will not change and 24mpx is still adequate for printing at any size if the image is viewed at a distance that allows you to see the whole print. Anyone that spends all their time 10cm from a 1m print looking at the detail has missed the point of most photographs.... It may be nice to print 1m wide at 300dpi and get 1:1 detail from the original file, but from a practical point of view it is frequently not necessary...... unless you are selling prints to other photographers, that is ...... 

We are heading the same way with TV's ...... 4K at normal domestic viewing distances is about the limit as far as required resolution ..... anything more would only be visible if you sit so close that it would be uncomfortable. They will no doubt push 8K when it appears in the mainstream ..... but it will be mostly hype from the point of watching TV and films. It may be excellent for viewing landscape shots though ....

As for data ..... it is just as well we don't do video as well ..... the last youtube vlogger I talked to said he had accumulated 20 Tb of footage and stills in the last year alone .....

People tend to forget, including me, that printing large, for large prints on the wall, is only done with very special images and compositions that have the character suited for hanging on the wall (apart from the fact that images are seen relatively more and more through screens than on paper). When I want something new on the wall, I have a hard time with my wife to distinguish beautiful  photo’s as such from photo’s that are really appropriate for on the wall. 18Mp is really more than enough, 10Mp on an M8 too, for printing photo-books. Vice versa is also true: I have a few safari photo’s on the wall that are made with the first Vlux, I don’t even remember the Mp’s. Sharpness turned out not be as important as content for that subject. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by otto.f

[Vieri]

21 minutes ago, otto.f said:

 

People tend to forget, including me, that printing large, for large prints on the wall, is only done with very special images and compositions that have the character suited for hanging on the wall (apart from the fact that images are seen relatively more and more through screens than on paper). When I want something new on the wall, I have a hard time with my wife to distinguish beautiful  photo’s as such from photo’s that are really appropriate for on the wall. 18Mp is really more than enough, 10Mp on an M8 too, for printing photo-books. Vice versa is also true: I have a few safari photo’s on the wall that are made with the first Vlux, I don’t even remember the Mp’s. Sharpness turned out not be as important as content for that subject. 

Hello Otto,

what you say is very true and very wise, and certainly applies to many people printing for their own pleasure. However, it doesn't apply to people doing this professionally, I am afraid, for the reasons I explained in my posts above. I.e., and for what is worth, I have an exhibition out there now (was in Milan for 6 months, then 1 month at the ImagO Festival last summer, somewhere else next summer) made of 18 large prints (about 1 mt on the long side), and I sell prints sized up to 120 cm on the long side plus special orders that are bigger than that. Collectors do tend to examine the kind of Fine Art prints I do from close. Therefore, I can use all the resolution I can get  While I can (and do) print that large with the SL thanks to some careful processing and up-rezzing, more Mp would make that easier. Since I also print images I took with the Leica S, Pentax 645Z (50 Mp) and some from my old PhaseOne (65+) and Leaf (80 Mp) backs, I can definitely see the difference in the ease of preparing the files for print.

Hope this helps offering a different perspective. Best regards,

Vieri

[otto.f]

Yes Vieri, agree. As far as I can judge, your landscapes are not made before careful study and experience of the times and seasons you can go there for the best chance for the right light etc. So in that case it makes sense to bring along heavy gear.

[MarkP]

17 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

The more recent video reviews are targeted specifically at FF. They are pointing out how 35mm was the amateur's format before digital. They are comparing the aspect ratios, pointing out that the 4:5 / 4x3 format is more visually pleasing, has less wasted area cropped in post processing, etc etc. 

The price point is meant to undercut the SL's market rather specifically. The UI has been drastically altered from the consumer grade UI to be more similar to the SL with the option of customer programming of buttons and functions; very SL-like. 

 

Horseshoe Bend with the SL and 24-90 🙂

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Brian C in Az]

13 hours ago, MarkP said:

Horseshoe Bend with the SL and 24-90 🙂

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

You could have taken the same picture with the Fuji and had money left over for dinner

Beautiful shot

There are a few pictures taken with the Fuji and the Otus lenses on fredmiranda's site. There are similar conversations taking place there.

It seems that the Fuji was very slow out of the gate but is making up ground in the backstretch. It's very likely that it will pull ahead with what appears to be a concerted effort on Fuji's part to make it a winner.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Brian C in Az

[MarkP]

9 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

You could have taken the same picture with the Fuji and had money left over for dinner

Beautiful shot

There are a few pictures taken with the Fuji and the Otus lenses on fredmiranda's site. There are similar conversations taking place there.

It seems that the Fuji was very slow out of the gate but is making up ground in the backstretch. It's very likely that it will pull ahead with what appears to be a concerted effort on Fuji's part to make it a winner.

Dinner? I think a chunk of my holiday more like it

 

Thanks.

 I’ll wait to see what new comes out in L mount, and GFX 100 vs 50 before rethinking my landscape gear.  

We’re now booked for Patagonia and Antarctica in early 2020 so plenty of time to decide.

 

Mark

[Glacier]

On 12/13/2018 at 9:58 PM, Glacier said:

Great perspectives, thanks for sharing. 

> Honestly, I don't know how much the SL system would add to your repertoire if you already own the GFX. 

Yes, that is exactly what I wanted your views on, considering you own both

On further reflection - and actually, I now realize that that was why I was contemplating the SL in the first place - is I am wondering if the 90-280mm on the SL would round out the GFX's lineup.

[Brian C in Az]

On 12/12/2018 at 2:25 PM, hoppyman said:

 I would think they are competing with the baby Hasselblad rather than any full frame 35mm camera though. 

The latest firmware is aimed directly at the 35mm or FF market.

 

Quote

The new firmware for the Fujifilm GFX 50S, version 3.30, is due out by the end of November 2018. Fujifilm says the update adds support for a new 35mm Format Mode when using GF- and H-mount adapters, which crops the center of the sensor to a size of 36mm x 24mm, a makes for a 30.5-megapixel image. The update also improves upon the eye-sensor responsiveness, adds simultaneous deletion of Raw and JPEG files, and supports color adjustments for the EVF and LCD displays.

So, Fuji has seen the GFX owners buy and use FF lenses, including the Zeiss Milvus and Otus lines.

Now we can get 30 mpx FF with built in film emulation.

Tempting...

Edited December 17, 2018 by Brian C in Az

[hhn360]

6 hours ago, Glacier said:

On further reflection - and actually, I now realize that that was why I was contemplating the SL in the first place - is I am wondering if the 90-280mm on the SL would round out the GFX's lineup.

 If you like something like a 70-200 (or 90-280), in the case of the SL), then yes I think the SL does add something.  I find the ergonomics of the 90-280 a bit awkward as it is very long.  

For me however, I would prefer the GF 110 & 250 primes, so again the SL doesn’t add anything.  

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

The latest firmware is aimed directly at the 35mm or FF market.

 

So, Fuji has seen the GFX owners buy and use FF lenses, including the Zeiss Milvus and Otus lines.

Now we can get 30 mpx FF with built in film emulation.

Tempting...

The resolution difference between 24 and 30 MP is minimal to the point of irrelevant.

[helged]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The resolution difference between 24 and 30 MP is minimal to the point of irrelevant.

+1.

[PeterGA]

Well - as a an owner of both systems - another thing  I can say in the SL's favour as far as lens selection goes ( there are many other better than's btw) is that the SL offers a wider range of wide-angle coverage  than what is currently available for the GFX - limited to the stunning 23mm (18mm equiv) on the wide side. The SL not only makes excellent use of the WATE thus allowing for 16mm and via adaptor the Zeiss Milvus 15/2.8 and even wider high-quality glass - the GFX pays a penalty using "adapter mounted" 35mm wides - the 15/2.8 Zeiss is unusable - except for a heavily cropped image offering less 'width' than Fuji's own 23mm...not so for SL - which makes very good use of adapted wides - Voigtlander is a popular adapted lens for extreme wides on the SL...

The Sl 16-35 zoom is a stunning lens - and like all the SL lenses- awaits a significantly higher megapixel chip - before it can be used to produce very large prints - meaning 1 -3meter on the long side - 3 or 4 meter prints are not uncommon requests...

A 45 - 50 megapixel SL2 will likely be the top of the tree as far as 35mm camera/lens combinations go. It may very well make the GFX irrelevant in discussions - except on price - which (of course) is Fuji's strategy.

So the answer to the switch question is really just another never-ending proof of the notion that any choice depends on end use requirements for job or task at hand - leaving costs aside, there are many good reasons to own both systems - today. As they say : "Who knows what tomorrow brings?" A 50 megapixel SL - might make the GFX irrelevant - not so much the 100MP next version though....the upgrade path continues for those who have the use and need of - more.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

24 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

... A 45 - 50 megapixel SL2 will likely be the top of the tree as far as 35mm camera/lens combinations go. It may very well make the GFX irrelevant in discussions - except on price - which (of course) is Fuji's strategy.

So the answer to the switch question is really just another never-ending proof of the notion that any choice depends on end use requirements for job or task at hand - leaving costs aside, there are many good reasons to own both systems - today. As they say : "Who knows what tomorrow brings?" A 50 megapixel SL - might make the GFX irrelevant - not so much the 100MP next version though....the upgrade path continues for those who have the use and need of - more.

 

+1. We already know that Panasonic will come with a FF, L-mount body with 47 mp sensor early/first half of 2019. Leica will also, eventually, come with their SL2 (as will Sigma with an incarnation of their Foveon sensor). Given that the 64 mp S3 is around the corner, one could imagine a 40-ish mp SL2 sensor. Possibly/likely in 2019. Time will tell. Irrespective of the SL2, the excellent Leica L-optics can be put on a 47 mp sensor body soon.