Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Enjoying the Fuji GFX R, which I bought originally to scan MF negatives, but it turns out to be a great walk-around camera. Feels far more comfortable than the SL2, which I've passed on several times. Ignore actual weight comparisons: it's how you respond to it intuitively. And I'm getting used to the horrible UI. After all, lots of people use Fuji, so I guess I can, too. So, likely a 100s buyer eventually, but is there a cooler camera anywhere than the Hassy 907?

But to my mind, no digital camera on earth renders like the Leica S. The mixture of colors and ever so slightly softer images looks so much more psychologically real to me than any other digital kit. There are too many challenges with that system: cost of the body (new); concern for its future (and possible transition to mirrorless), motors in the lenses. It's sort of like the fixed lens Foveon cameras: the most beautiful digital images but so many obstacles to getting them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 991
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’m no expert. But I am a camera tart. I also take, scan, edit, post and print photos regularly and have found ways to enjoy all of those parts of the process. The cameras that I use the most at the moment are the MA, M10R, M10M, SL2 and SL2-S. I have owned an X1D 4116 for a few years and still do. Today I picked up a GFX100S.    I have travelled the world with all of these bodies except the Fuji (which is new to me). At various times I have been smitten with all of them, for different

I'm shot an U15 cricket grand final with the GFX100S and the 250 with TC yesterday.  I put 4,172 frames on the camera, in hot sun. It didn't miss a beat. One battery change (and used 4 x 256GB cards for the RAW files). Each RAW file is about 200MB.  Bright light with fast shutter speeds and ISO 1000 or below for all shots, so no dynamic range stress testing... but I'm blown away by the sheer resolution. I mean, you can easily zoom in and pick out stiching in the players' clothing, ever

I kind of agree with Jim regarding 100S. However, for a product aiming mass market, I understand FUJI's choice or limitation here. The build quality leave something to be desired but IQ is insane good.  The build highlight of 100S for me are: shoulder screen, flip screen design, and shutter. All above are the best or as best as I ever used.  This is a photographer tool just works. 100s with 45mm. Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du

Posted Images

56 minutes ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

The 100MP GFX sensors provide true 16bit data (this is not called bit-rate, BTW). However, the 16-bits do not seem to be useful in GFX cameras, i.e., it does not bring any benefits compared to 14-bit sensors. The main advantage that 100 vs. 50MP brings is reduced aliasing. 
I prefer the output of my S3 to the output of my GFX100S. Of course, others will disagree, but it is not all about the age of the design or technical specifications.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Yes and no. It's good value for money, but its IQ is behind larger format digiback systems from PhaseOne and Hasselblad (H system). It will also have a hard time beating the Leica S3 in many situations. The sensor size is similar, the GFX has a more pixels, but the S3 has better lenses. You can argue either way (there are lots of threads about that, here and elsewhere), but the fact that it's such a fierce argument tells you that neither system is "unbeatable."

The only system that's "unbeatable" is 8x10 film, in my opinion, and only if you ignore larger film and plate systems. It all boils-down to knowing what you want to achieve with your photography.

Of course..  everything is subjective..

and, you can’t compare 54x40 sensors to 44x33.. it’s pretty much like comparing FF to MF in a way.

anyway, to sum up.. I’d still consider it “unbeatable” among its comparable peers.. once we get to a certain level of quality, we’re just splitting hairs to argue over which is better over which.. the ultimate point is that IQ of GFX 100s isn’t a “compromise” when you choose this over the others.. each system has its own pros and cons.. when it comes to IQ, none of the options are going to be a compromise really.. 

I think a few phaseone owners have dropped their kits to get the gfx? The difference is negligible apparently? I only know what gfx is capable of.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The 100MP GFX sensors provide true 16bit data (this is not called bit-rate, BTW). However, the 16-bits do not seem to be useful in GFX cameras, i.e., it does not bring any benefits compared to 14-bit sensors. The main advantage that 100 vs. 50MP brings is reduced aliasing. 
I prefer the output of my S3 to the output of my GFX100S. Of course, others will disagree, but it is not all about the age of the design or technical specifications.

 

Let me put it this way, if the S3 were priced at say $10k then perhaps there maybe more takers.. is the S3 worth 3 times the price of gfx 100s? I believe NOT..
 

The ultimate question anybody would ask is 

at $6000, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much do I like the output of GFX 100s?

and at $20,000, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much do I like the output of Leica S3?

let’s include decimals for more clarity 😌

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frame-it said:

once its setup properly along with the custom buttons, one rarely has to dive in again

i used this to originally setup my 50R, would be similar for the other models too

https://www.prophotonut.com/2018/10/24/fujifilm-gfx50s-and-gfx50r-settings-and-30000-frame-review/

Yes, I also have my “My menu” setup and a few customizations but still the original menu is second worse to Sony I think :) Panasonic also has complex menus but they at least have touch screen navigation 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The S lenses do not need "updating."  Compared to a rather eclectic menagerie of the GF ones, they are all rendering in the same inimical way.  I'll take the S rendering over anything else any day.  With time they'll be some of the most sought-after cinema lenses.  Shooting video on SL2[-S] with them would be amazing.  When S3 drops in price it will be an excellent extension for the S kits.  You cannot really compare it to GFX/XCD, it's a nice pursuit akin to using a 907x with a V system, which is not made anymore but has its fans.

Edited by setuporg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, setuporg said:

The S lenses do not need "updating."  Compared to a rather eclectic menagerie of the GF ones, they are all rendering in the same way.  With time they'll be some of the most sought-after cinema lenses.  Shooting video on SL2[-S] with them would be amazing.  

It'd be nice to use  S lenses on movies if they had a manual iris ring . Let's hope  for the day when  the S line lenses will be rehoused with cine mode specs !

 

Edited by JMF
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

If you shot with an S3 and the S lenses and someone told you it was 16 bit and the lenses were all new, would the IQ leave you believing they were wrong? I don’t think those specs are relevant when comparing to the GFX when the quality of the S system is as high as it is.

I have not shot with the S3 but have briefly tested the S007. The price is the only thing that kept me from buying at the time. If I were to get into the S system today it would need to be lower priced and include an EVF. 

If handed an opportunity to shoot with Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, and Canon with no spec sheets at all and no prices, just a similar set of lenses from each, I wonder what the choices would be. I bet the resolution, the bit depth, a lot of specs would be far less important than they are now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

I don't have an S3 (still have my S2 and 007), but I have used one. Not being able to compare directly to the S3 files makes a comparison difficult but I was blown away by the S3 files, when compared to the X1D. If it was in a better body, I would have one. No, it won't pull the detail of a 100MP sensor, but those files were glorious.

And I also have to disagree on the S lenses. Still class leading, except the zoom.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit,

the GFX100 has 16 bit files, open them in raw digger and check the histogram range..old news.

dont know about the 100s

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frame-it said:

the GFX100 has 16 bit files, open them in raw digger and check the histogram range..old news.

dont know about the 100s

The 102MP sensor is true 16 bit. So the 100 and 100S.

The older 51MP sensor was a 14 bit sensor in a 16 bit wrapper. So the 50R/S, X1D, 645Z etc are 14 bit. But this sensor somehow still managed to have DR that competes with the newer sensor despite the lower bit count.

personally I think a lot of people place too much importance in bit depth and it's relationship to DR. There's so much more going on for real world DR than bit depth alone.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The 102MP sensor is true 16 bit. So the 100 and 100S.

The older 51MP sensor was a 14 bit sensor in a 16 bit wrapper. So the 50R/S, X1D, 645Z etc are 14 bit. But this sensor somehow still managed to have DR that competes with the newer sensor despite the lower bit count.

personally I think a lot of people place too much importance in bit depth and it's relationship to DR. There's so much more going on for real world DR than bit depth alone.

Gordon

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LD_50 said:

If you shot with an S3 and the S lenses and someone told you it was 16 bit and the lenses were all new, would the IQ leave you believing they were wrong? I don’t think those specs are relevant when comparing to the GFX when the quality of the S system is as high as it is.

I have not shot with the S3 but have briefly tested the S007. The price is the only thing that kept me from buying at the time. If I were to get into the S system today it would need to be lower priced and include an EVF. 

If handed an opportunity to shoot with Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, and Canon with no spec sheets at all and no prices, just a similar set of lenses from each, I wonder what the choices would be. I bet the resolution, the bit depth, a lot of specs would be far less important than they are now. 

It’s not so much about the end result as it is working with the files. For example If you use files from a phase one you will see the difference. End results from most cameras are hard to decipher as we are in an era most cameras are really good, but it’s working with the files that you see the differences. 
 

One of the reasons photographers buy into MF is not just detail but working with the files. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Succisa75 said:

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

Phase One cameras have larger sensors(better DR) and in their cameras 16-bit seems to matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JMF said:

Let's hope  for the day when  the S line lenses will be rehoused with cine mode specs !

They are, under the Thalia name. They've been used on many big budget features. 

The Thalia set includes a 55 and a 90, which may some day be included in the S lineup. One can dream.

No zoom or 120TS, but  those two lenses are less relevant to cinema. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

The specifications of both sensors are widely known. Both from Sony. You can look them up. No conversation required.

Your trying to compare a miniMF (33x44mm) sensor to a 50x44mm sensor. Unsurprisingly the larger sensor performs better. Just like the 14bit 44x33mm sensor outperforms most 45-50MP 24x36mm 14 bit sensors. There's no surprises here. All else being equal a larger sensor has larger photosites and the files are more pliable.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

It’s not so much about the end result as it is working with the files. For example If you use files from a phase one you will see the difference. End results from most cameras are hard to decipher as we are in an era most cameras are really good, but it’s working with the files that you see the differences. 
 

One of the reasons photographers buy into MF is not just detail but working with the files. 

I’m also referring to working with the files, which leads to the end result. If you didn’t read the bit depth on a spec sheet I can guarantee you’d have no idea its significance. 

You also mentioned the S lenses are older, what’s that have to do with working with the files?

Phase One uses a larger sensor than the Fuji so I’m not sure how that’s related.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the size and weight comparison of the 3 systems..

XCD + 90mm f3.2

GFX100s + 80mm f1.7

S007 + 70mm f2.5

increasing focal lengths and decreasing sizes across these 3 systems 😌 although the aperture is a factor impacting sizes of the lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Excellent comparison!  To be more fair you might choose XCD 80/1.9, that will immediately bring the weight up a bunch.  The S also has its “S Nodtilux”, the 100, which seems a better peer of the other two systems’ widest lenses, but it is very similar to the S70 in size and weight.

I think S rendering is really unique compared to simply hyper realistic one of both the mirrorless nephews.  So even if you don’t print, you see a rather pronounced difference.  Another reason to get a 007.

The Fuji is really sexy but it’s surprisingly heavy with the 80/1.7, which just shows you cannot have it all.  As the summer gets into bloom and I go on more and more hikes, I can’t help leaning back to FF and even APS-C systems.  X1D+45P is the only MF I care to carry uphill.

Edited by setuporg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, aksclix said:

Here is the size and weight comparison of the 3 systems..

XCD + 90mm f3.2

GFX100s + 80mm f1.7

S007 + 70mm f2.5

increasing focal lengths and decreasing sizes across these 3 systems 😌 although the aperture is a factor impacting sizes of the lenses

Most sources list S007 at 2.8lb (body only), and S70 Summarit (non-CS) at 1.63lb, for total 4.43lb.  And the Hasselblad X1Dii (with battery) plus XCD 90 combo at 3.05lb (original X1D lighter still). 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...