GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, LD_50 said:

You said wide lenses focus more quickly because they have smaller elements. That’s just not true because longer focal length lenses are often designed with very small focusing elements. The SL lenses offer examples. These aren’t outliers, check out wide angle primes from each company and compare to their fastest focusing lenses. 

I didn’t find the Q to be faster than the 24-90, though I’ve not done any measurements to prove the point. 

No. You're talking about a 200mm lens that has no size limitations with huge focus motors and focus limiters.  That is what I call an outlier, as it brings no merit to this discussion. Put that enormous motor and focus limit (2m+) on a 28mm lens and focus would be instant as it would pretty much be zone-focusing all the time.  As I said, "with all things being equal" a fast and wide lens would have faster AF than just about any other lens.

Which longer focal length SL lens has a smaller focusing element than the Q btw? 

[Mr.Q]

29 minutes ago, ZHNL said:

Faster than 24-90 at 28mm?

Yes.  It's not often mentioned btw, but I think the original Q was a tad bit faster at focusing than the Q2.  I've had 2 copies of each and that's my opinion.

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, Succisa75 said:

The 100 was not an everyday carry due to size and weight, the 100S has changed that. 

Yes it has, the GF80 is only like 50g heavier than the Summicron's and 300g lighter than the 50 Summilux., which was glued to my SL2 before I switched.  I definitely feel the difference.

Leica SL2S - 931g 
w/ 50 Summilux SL -  1996g
w/ 75 Summicron SL - 1651g
w/ 90 Summicron SL - 1631g

Fuji GFX100S - 900g
w/ GF80/1.7 - 1695g

[Guest]

An argument about which massive heavy camera is not quite as massive and heavy as the other one.

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

No. You're talking about a 200mm lens that has no size limitations with huge focus motors and focus limiters.  That is what I call an outlier, as it brings no merit to this discussion. Put that enormous motor and focus limit (2m+) on a 28mm lens and focus would be instant as it would pretty much be zone-focusing all the time.  As I said, "with all things being equal" a fast and wide lens would have faster AF than just about any other lens.

Which longer focal length SL lens has a smaller focusing element than the Q btw? 

I mentioned the 200mm lens, as well as the 24-90 and mentioned that the fastest AF lenses for each system tend not to be wide angle lenses. The 200 I mentioned is not an outlier. It’s the norm for the lenses designed for sports, wildlife, and action to have the fastest AF ability. Those tend to be longer focal lengths. It’s a design decision because “all things equal” lens design doesn’t exist in reality. 

I have no idea if any SL lenses have smaller moving elements than the Q. I’ve never looked at the lens diagrams for the Q. But like I said before, it’s element size, motor design, and the camera body that determine the AF speed. 

[ravinj]

If going by weight, Nikon Z7II with Z 50 F1.8 at 1090 grams total, must be better than Fuji GFX 100S + GF 80 or Leica SL2 with any Summicron SL.

Edited March 7, 2021 by ravinj

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, ravinj said:

If going by weight, Nikon Z7II with Z 50 F1.8 at 1090 grams total, must be better than Fuji GFX 100S + GF 80 or Leica SL2 with any Summicron SL.

I think the idea is the quality you can achieve with the Fuji with the 80 f/1.7 is pretty impressive for the size and weight. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by LD_50

[Succisa75]

56 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

An argument about which massive heavy camera is not quite as massive and heavy as the other one.

Lol!! It’s a massively weighty debate 😂

[ravinj]

16 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I think the idea is the quality you can achieve with the Fuji with the 80 f/1.7 is pretty impressive for the size and weight. 

Most of the new cameras are impressive. Even my older GFX 50R was stunning. So was my Nikon Z6 for its size, weight and price. My RX100 VI is unmatched for its tiny size, reach and IQ in most cases. 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by ravinj

[aksclix]

1 hour ago, steve 1959 said:

An argument about which massive heavy camera is not quite as massive and heavy as the other one.

Sounds like a battle of the heavy weights.. 

[meerec]

4 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Leica SL2S - 931g 
w/ 50 Summilux SL -  1996g
w/ 75 Summicron SL - 1651g
w/ 90 Summicron SL - 1631g

Fuji GFX100S - 900g
w/ GF80/1.7 - 1695g

Hasselblad 907X with 80/1.9 ... 740g+1044g=1,784g my definite favourite // going shooting next 😂 😝 

[Jon Warwick]

9 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

 

The 100 was not an everyday carry due to size and weight, the 100S has changed that. 

I have now got the GFX100S, and GF 63mm lens.

Its combined weight is less than the SL2 + SL 50 APO that I had. That alone feels noticeable to me, but moreover the handling of the 100S is better for me.....the camera & GF63m sit with an obvious “center balance” in my hand.

Indeed the handling of the GFX100S reminds me more of my first digital (a Canon 40D and Canon 50mm 1.4) more than it does the handling of the SL2 + SL APO .... the latter combo I found had an obvious “front heavy” bias due to the length and weight of the SL APO primes (compared to the shorter and lighter GF 63mm). 

No Raw profiles yet, so certainly no definitive view on image quality except to say even in the inferior JPEG’s I can already see that a 100mp sensor medium format sensor is a major major upgrade from c 50mp full frame for the large 60” images that I do. Not just resolution, but the images off the GFX100S already look deeper in tonality and also smoother in the gradations. It’s really not sweating at that image size, and presumably the larger sensor puts less demands on the lens, and as a result the images have a more natural and relaxed feel (to my eyes) compared to 50mp full frame including the SL2 in high resolution mode.

Similar to film, just going up a sensor and megapixel size in digital has finally got me to what I was looking for in terms of image quality.

For me, personally, the GFX100S replaces my SL2 very readily for general use, but in addition (pending some proper testing and Adobe profiles) I suspect it may also replace my 5x4 film camera .....finally, I’m seeing a “look” (ie, a mix of resolution, tonal depth and smoothness) from a digital camera that reminds me of larger format film, and that’s certainly not been the case with any image I’d seen from 50mp full frame.

[Jon Warwick]

A fairly random picture, but gives some sense of scale of M7 vs GFX100S vs SL APO .....

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!

[Jon Warwick]

Leica M7 vs GFX100S

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!

[Jon Warwick]

Final one .....given it's a consideration for replacing my 5x4 when I'm hiking in the mountains, I couldn't resist!  The Walker Titan XL is a fabulous 5x4 though.

 

 

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!

[Jon Warwick]

12 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

I once owned the GFX 50S with the GFX 63 (among others). I will be the first to admit that for the money what you get in terms of lenses and new bodies from Fuji are just spectacular, BUT, please lets get real when you compare the Fuji 63 to the utterly amazing with no peer SL 50APO. 

Another great thing about the Fuji medium format lenses and cameras is that they actually had a very nice trade in value, which both manufacturers have going for them.

I get all the wonderful things about the new 100s and that they fixed just about every single thing that I didn't like about the 50s, however, when we talk about systems there is more to a system than just the body and as good as Fuji lenses are (kind of reminds me of the stunning Mamiya R7 lenses) the incredible APO primes and even the 24-90 aren't matched by Fuji. Of course, if you want to do wild life with the Fuji, good luck. 

yes, I fully agree that the SL APOs are incredible indeed, with any benefits more obvious the wider open one shoots. You'd hope there's a difference too at 3x the price of the GF63mm. But I'm looking much more holistically at the GFX100S, ie, I print to 60" wide, and so higher megapixels do help here, which is why I've picked one up because the 100mp resolution is a lot closer to my 5x4 film with a drum scan than is 50mp (whether full frame or medium format).  As I said in post #4 and I think it still holds true for me now.... "If I printed smaller, ie, to 40" wide, I'd simply stick to the SL2, no doubt about it, given its incredible SL APO primes and superb handling, and sufficient resolution for that print size".

Edited March 7, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[BernardC]

Maybe it's time to step back. We are at the point where people are comparing 50g differences on 1.7kg cameras.

I know some will disagree with me, but here is my advice: buy the one you like. If you don't, you'll find yourself at the same decision point in six months.

[aksclix]

Well, the fact that a few options are being compared to Leica’s offerings today proves how far the others have come along.. 

I’ve not had the gf 63 but do have the 110 f2 and 250 f4.. I cannot find anything to complain about with those lenses.. could’ve been more prettier design wise but nothing else 😌 

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, Priaptor said:

For me another game changer, albeit off the wall in price, is the new M 35 APO. I was just about to pull the trigger on the SL 35 APO until this was released. While it would render the SL without autofocus, shooting M lenses on the SL, particularly at that focal length is simple and actually in some ways more enjoyable while, since we are discussing size, making the SL2 a much lighter all day alternative. As more people get that M 35 APO and use it on the SL we will see. So far I know of two people doing this, including Jono, and they love it. 

 

It's a good point. Until now, I'd presumed that a larger sized lens (as seen in the SL APOs) was a prerequisite for higher image quality. The MTFs for the SL APOs, for example, were superior to the M 50 APO. But this week my view was turned on its head with the release of the M 35mm APO, which despite its small size has, for all intents and purposes, an MTF that is pretty much bang in line with the incredible SL 35 APO. On the M 10M especially, I'm guessing the M 35mm APSH's performance is presumably impeccable.

So whilst I've moved to the GFX100S for its high resolution away from the SL2 (both with similar sizes and weights), Leica with this M 35 APO has essentially confirmed to me another good reason to why I'm remaining part of the Leica family but sticking to "all things M", ie, IMHO it shows that the small size and weight of the Ms remain pretty much unique, BUT no compromise in image quality is now required for very small and compact lenses, even against its own highest performing SL primes.  That's remarkable really, hats off to the people who designed and built it.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

It's a good point. Until now, I'd presumed that a larger sized lens (as seen in the SL APOs) was a prerequisite for higher image quality. The MTFs for the SL APOs, for example, were superior to the M 50 APO. But this week my view was turned on its head with the release of the M 35mm APO, which despite its small size has, for all intents and purposes, an MTF that is pretty much bang in line with the incredible SL 35 APO. On the M 10M especially, I'm guessing the M 35mm APSH's performance is presumably impeccable.

So whilst I've moved to the GFX100S for its high resolution away from the SL2 (both with similar sizes and weights), Leica with this M 35 APO has essentially confirmed to me another good reason to why I'm remaining part of the Leica but sticking to "all things M", ie, IMHO it shows that the small size and weight of the Ms remain pretty much unique, BUT no compromise in image quality is now required for very small and compact lenses, even against its own highest performing SL primes.  That's remarkable really, hats off to the people who designed and built it.

Smaller size is often possible, but at a steep cost.  It’s one reason the M APO is priced over 60% more than its SL counterpart, despite the latter having AF capability. Of course it helps that the M market is less subject to price constraints than the broader SL space. Still a great design achievement, though, as was the 50 M APO, and the 50 M Summilux ASPH before it.

Jeff