GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure why this is even a debate. I've tried the 30 fps with my 35gm.  In my short testing, shooting my kid running around, I got late 25-30 fps shooting RAW, consistently. 

These are both 30 fps videos shot with 50MP bursts.
 

 

[Mr.Q]

  

On 7/1/2021 at 1:59 PM, Speeding said:

In the field, the A1 topped out at the same place the A9II does.  If it requires a dozen asterisks to create an environment where it might reach 30fps, what’s the practical utility?  Perhaps someone can post 30 frame sequence of moving target taken in 1 sec.  XT4, A9, G9, EM1 all top out around 12-16fps depending on lenses.  That’s by no means bad, but these marketing claims of 18, 20, 30 FPS are a bit much.  About as helpful as CIPA stabilization rating 🙂

See above. These are essentially 9K 30P videos. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Mr.Q

[Speeding]

3 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

We timed it with two people. One using the camera one with a timer. I don’t have the images anymore as my test was done when before official launch. I don’t own the camera, but had access to it early. 
 

Clearly you don’t believe mid 20s can be achieved but there are numerous photographers and reviewers that have gotten speeds that replicate my findings. 

Perhaps try going to the A1 Facebook group and ask others who can share more info with you. 

All the best!
 

It’s not that I don’t believe it can be done, I just haven’t seen anyone actually do it.  No one seems to have any files they can share that demonstrates this.  I made several attempts to get over 14-16fps with the 100-400GM and 600/4.  Simply doesn’t happen with moving subject.  Only stationary target where the lens doesn’t have to move focus. 

[Speeding]

3 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

I'm not sure why this is even a debate. I've tried the 30 fps with my 35gm.  In my short testing, shooting my kid running around, I got late 25-30 fps shooting RAW, consistently. 

These are both 30 fps videos shot with 50MP bursts.
 

 

Funny there are no actual files shared that show 30fps.  I wonder why that is?  Anyone can shoot video 30fps and claim they are burst RAW lol.  Notice how the subject in the first video isn’t moving?  Stands in the same spot.  Have him run toward or away from the camera and share the RAW’s.  You’ll see the FPS drop to 15.  That’s still very good, but it’s not 30.

Edited July 3, 2021 by Speeding

[Mr.Q]

2 hours ago, Speeding said:

Funny there are no actual files shared that show 30fps.  I wonder why that is?  Anyone can shoot video 30fps and claim they are burst RAW lol.  Notice how the subject in the first video isn’t moving?  Stands in the same spot.  Have him run toward or away from the camera and share the RAW’s.  You’ll see the FPS drop to 15.  That’s still very good, but it’s not 30.

Sorry but I think you set up your camera wrong.   I don't have the issues you posted nor have I heard of anyone that mentioning them.  Too bad you had to return it before you could correctly set up the camera.

[Mr.Q]

Given that your framerate dropped with the subject moving, you probably set up the AF-C to AF priority which reduces the framerate substantially. You need to set it up to Release Priority if you want the full 30 fps, or Balance Emphasis which gives you anywhere from mid-20 (moving subjecty) to 30 fps (if subject moves slow or stationary)  There may have been other settings that you may have missed but it is user error, 100%.

[Speeding]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

7 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Sorry but I think you set up your camera wrong.   I don't have the issues you posted nor have I heard of anyone that mentioning them.  Too bad you had to return it before you could correctly set up the camera.

I'm rather familiar with Sony AF having owned both A9 and A9II prior to A1.  Since you don't have any issues, and this seems to be routine feat for you, perhaps you could share 30fps sequence with EXIF intact?  I look forward to it.

7 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Given that your framerate dropped with the subject moving, you probably set up the AF-C to AF priority which reduces the framerate substantially. You need to set it up to Release Priority if you want the full 30 fps, or Balance Emphasis which gives you anywhere from mid-20 (moving subjecty) to 30 fps (if subject moves slow or stationary)  There may have been other settings that you may have missed but it is user error, 100%.

As I mentioned in post 961 I used release priority too, which increased the number of frames but also out of focus frames such that in focus frames on moving subject was only 12-13 in focus.  That's a far cry from 30fps.

Thanks for your suggestions and I look forward to your 30fps examples.  I am happy to provide a cloud link for you to upload ARW's.

[Mr.Q]

Sorry but I don't want to go through that trouble just to prove a point on a message board.  I would be willing to help you if you still own the camera, but you don't. 

As I said, Balance Emphasis is the setting you need to use if you want a good balance of speed and AF accuracy.  Release priority is still good enough for many situations, as in the 9K 30p short film shot above.

[Speeding]

22 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Sorry but I don't want to go through that trouble just to prove a point on a message board.  I would be willing to help you if you still own the camera, but you don't. 

As I said, Balance Emphasis is the setting you need to use if you want a good balance of speed and AF accuracy.  Release priority is still good enough for many situations, as in the 9K 30p short film shot above.

But it’s so easy right?  I think we both know better.  Thanks for proving my point though.  People want to believe the marketing fluff but no one (including myself) able to actually do this. The 14-16fps is great but this 30fps only applies to stationary subjects.  Perhaps future lens design will accommodate this but it’s not happening on the 100-400 or 600/4 GM.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Speeding

[Succisa75]

45 minutes ago, Speeding said:

But it’s so easy right?  I think we both know better.  Thanks for proving my point though.  People want to believe the marketing fluff but no one (including myself) able to actually do this. The 14-16fps is great but this 30fps only applies to stationary subjects.  Perhaps future lens design will accommodate this but it’s not happening on the 100-400 or 600/4 GM.

Please go to the A1 Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/?ref=share and ask there. You seem to think you are right and the rest are wrong. There are 6.6k users that will help you. 

 

[Speeding]

2 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

Please go to the A1 Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalpha1/?ref=share and ask there. You seem to think you are right and the rest are wrong. There are 6.6k users that will help you. 

 

I reached out to several prominent members months ago and no one has actually achieved 30fps on a moving subject.  Just like no one here seems to be able to.  Funny isn’t it?  Appreciate the suggestion though.  

[Ko.Fe.]

On 1/28/2021 at 1:26 AM, setuporg said:

Folks -- with the GFX100S announced today, that costs exactly as much as the SL2, and the 80mm/f1.7 lens, do you think we'll see domination by Fuji of both the FF segment and the MF one?

Fuji FF is hard to imagine to dominate. Sony, Canon are where. With Nikon been long time and Panasonic making it hot. FujiFilm is milking those who likes useless analog dials via X crops.  

Fiji MF been for awhile. 

Most common mistake is to compare only cost on pricey cameras. While service must be taken into equation. 

H1D, what is this in terms of service availability? SL2 is another next to none for service. FujiFilm? At least something where I'm. Local service.

I know one local  person who has to switch to dMF from Canon FF. Due to clients specific needs. He came to local camera store (loyal customer) and traded in his Canon FF gear towards FujiFilm dMF.

I have seen his large prints, worth it. He is paid for it between $$$$ and $$$$$ per print. Would Leica/Hassel do any better on prints? Don't know if he is even considered it. 

[oldwino]

For a brief while, I could swear this was a thread on DPReview…An argument about a Sony…

Thanks, @Ko.Fe.for bringing the topic back.

I just picked up a used Fuji 50R (they are pretty “cheap” right now). So far, I’m “meh” on it. I’m not sure the subtle differences are worth it for my photography. Plus, it feels like every Fuji I’ve ever used - somehow solid, but somehow plasticy at the same time. My Lumix S5 feels better built. 
Maybe the 100S is better, but it’s out of my comfortable price range. 

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, oldwino said:

For a brief while, I could swear this was a thread on DPReview…An argument about a Sony…

Thanks, @Ko.Fe.for bringing the topic back.

I just picked up a used Fuji 50R (they are pretty “cheap” right now). So far, I’m “meh” on it. I’m not sure the subtle differences are worth it for my photography. Plus, it feels like every Fuji I’ve ever used - somehow solid, but somehow plasticy at the same time. My Lumix S5 feels better built. 
Maybe the 100S is better, but it’s out of my comfortable price range. 

To be honest I'm not impressed by Fuji dMF, either. More resolution, more tonality due to larger censor. But on real life shots, like street, it is just meh. And I totally agree on FujiFilm cameras feel. Even Xpro with its fancy metal plates, still have this cheap plasticy feel from the rest of the body. Every time I take any FujiFilm cameras in my hands I have this feel.  I'm fine with my Canon RP. It is build with honesty, just plastic .

Edited July 7, 2021 by Ko.Fe.

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, oldwino said:

Maybe the 100S is better

It is.

Also the 50R is a "first generation" product and suffer from the usual flaws all first gen products have

[Jon Warwick]

6 hours ago, oldwino said:

I just picked up a used Fuji 50R (they are pretty “cheap” right now). So far, I’m “meh” on it. I’m not sure the subtle differences are worth it for my photography. ….Maybe the 100S is better ….

IMHO I don’t think something like a Fuji 50MP medium format is massively different in image quality now compared to an excellent full frame camera of similar megapixels such as (say) the SL2.

In contrast I own the GFX100S, and find the jump in image quality very noticeable, it’s simply a breeze to make massive prints from it that have incredible detail but ALSO with a natural and gentle tonality to them (it reminds me of large format 5x4 film in that sense). I just had a 65” wide inkjet done from the GFX100S, and I find the image quality flawless and beautiful. For me, it’s the first digital I’ve owned where I don’t miss large format film, which has always been my image quality benchmark. The GFX100S is also incredibly easy to use due to its IBIS (clearly not unique at all, but I do find it ridiculous to be casually handholding at 100 mexapixels and get consistently tack-sharp images)!

I do much much prefer the build quality of an SL2 and its native SL lenses, however. Not just the metal solid feel, but also things like super responsive buttons. Leica did a magnificent job there. I think that’s a permanent downside for me of switching away from Leica, I find it hard to see alternatives with the tactile quality that Leica offers ….possibly one exception (I’ve never extensively tried it) is an Alpa medium format, which are ostensibly metal and precision made, but clearly very manual in use.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[Mick H]

6 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

IMHO I don’t think something like a Fuji 50MP medium format is massively different in image quality now compared to an excellent full frame camera of similar megapixels such as (say) the SL2.

In contrast I own the GFX100S, and find the jump in image quality very noticeable, it’s simply a breeze to make massive prints from it that have incredible detail but ALSO with a natural and gentle tonality to them (it reminds me of large format 5x4 film in that sense). I just had a 65” wide inkjet done from the GFX100S, and I find the image quality flawless and beautiful. For me, it’s the first digital I’ve owned where I don’t miss large format film, which has always been my image quality benchmark. The GFX100S is also incredibly easy to use due to its IBIS (clearly not unique at all, but I do find it ridiculous to be casually handholding at 100 mexapixels and get consistently tack-sharp images)!

I do much much prefer the build quality of an SL2 and its native SL lenses, however. Not just the metal solid feel, but also things like super responsive buttons. Leica did a magnificent job there. I think that’s a permanent downside for me of switching away from Leica, I find it hard to see alternatives with the tactile quality that Leica offers ….possibly one exception (I’ve never extensively tried it) is an Alpa medium format, which are ostensibly metal and precision made, but clearly very manual in use.

I agree.  I like the feel of my SL and prefer its EVF and diopter control to my GFX100S.  The Fuji files allow for tremendous shadow/highlight recovery and cropping of course. PDAF works reliably when used with Eye AF.  F Log LUT is available for the EVF for video.  Edited F Log looks good to my eye.  

 

[6bit]

I have a Fuji 50R. It’s dynamic range is the reason. The raw files are great to work with. The camera itself is big (volume wise) and the lenses are even bigger. Not something I enjoy carrying around. 
 

focus is also not great. It’s a niche line of cameras. I view the SL line as more versatile and compact. 
 

No, I don’t see them dominating FF.

[Mr.Q]

21 hours ago, oldwino said:

For a brief while, I could swear this was a thread on DPReview…An argument about a Sony…

My apologies...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[o2mpx]

Read through this old thread, thought I post a question:

Have a SL-2 plus 16-35/24-90/24-70 all Leica lenses and a Sigma FP-L. Have been impressed by the tonal ranges, details from Fuji GFX-100s reviews. 
 

Travel landscapes, all static, no more than occasional moving water, with 80% of shots taken less than 28mm, have been the subject. Getting the 24-70 was an attempt to reduce weight without taking the 24-90; including perhaps not taking the SL-2 but Sigma FP-L in its place. 

Could I get away with a Fuji GFX-100s, perhaps the 20-35 plus a 80 or 100/110, 2 lens setup and get improved image quality instead of the L mount kit?

Understand weight on Fuji vs L mount kits might be weight equivalent, but the improved file quality might be worth no weight savings?