Any S to Fuji GFX100s Comparisons?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I guess you know that the 100 MP X2D was launched in September (with three lenses).  Various discussions here and elsewhere.

Jeff

It was meant to be a joke, Don’t be serious. 

Many years ago, back to Canon G1X (1), I had a chance to buy a promotion that includes the water proof housing. The promotion had a remark, saying due security and export license, the water proof housing is banned to ship to some counties, including the country that makes the stuff. 

[irenedp]

I sold a few months ago a GFX 100 (the first one, not the S) plus several lenses to pay for another medium format camera (a second hand Phase from a friend who was retiring). My experience with GFXs goes back to 2017 when I got the first 50s. In general I would say that the first GFX held its water pretty well and the lenses performed beautifully, particularly the 32-64 and the 110. When I traded that one in for a 100 in late 2019, I was very positively impressed by the color depth (it has 16 bit color), but the lenses did not perform that well. Fuji recommends a re-calibration of the lenses, and by doing that the quality improves. It is Ok. The camera has also the advantage of IBIS, which if you are a wedding photographer matters a lot, and performs reasonably well at high ISO. Said that, my S2 within is pretty constrained use limitations blows it out of the water in detail and image quality. I reckon that the lenses I have (70, 35 and a Mamiya shift) are way better than any of Fuji’s lenses, but probably the lower resolution and larger pixels help too. Then, the Fuji files tonality is very oriented for their typical customers, even using Adobe color as a starting point (i reckon the white balance is also tuned). The Schneider lenses of the Phase, even with the added handicap of the larger resolution, also blow the Fuji’s out of the water, and are in par with the Leica image quality albeit with a bit less micro contrast.  

Personally, I am looking forward to get an S3 as a second body for the Phase, but for me image quality and color accuracy are paramount, and I also have invested in the system.  In a different line of work maybe the GFX would be the right choice. I would also consider the new Hassie, but I have no personal experience of it other than seeing some reviews. 

[Advertisement]

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

[mark r.]

I own X1D-2, GFX100s, and now SL2-S, the latter have used Summilux 50, a few M Voigts, a few Zeiss M, and will be selling both and keeping the latter SL2-s.

the image quality for me speaks for itself compared to the other two.  Fuji is great in low light, Hass is finicky to get colors right, but Leica is also good enough, I'm not making 5-foot prints.

Never thought I'd arrive at this conclusion since I rented SL2 but SL2-S is 'easier' to shoot/print imo.

[Einst_Stein]

A big advantage of GFX system is its widely available lens adapter.  I met GFX buyers in Hong Kong, almost everyone has one or many lens adapters even before they buy the camera.   

[mikelevitt]

On 3/13/2021 at 9:14 AM, BernardC said:

That's a funny thing about Fuji's system. On the one hand, owners are always telling us that the lenses are amazing. One the other hand, owners desperately want better lenses to put on their cameras. It seems contradictory, but perhaps someone can explain. It's especially weird with S lenses: focal lengths overlap Fuji's lenses, and the S lenses are more expensive. In a normal world, you would want to use the native lens 100% of the time, but there's something strange going on in the Fuji world. Perhaps people are starting to realize that it's very hard to get 100MP of information on a sensor, even with IBIS and every AF mode. The answer is the same as it's ever been: tripod, manual focus, shoot at dawn on a clear day (no heat haze), optimal apertures, camera movements, etc. That will get you a sharp picture, but not necessarily a compelling one.

You almost never hear that about the X1D, even though you can adapt lenses onto that platform. People seem happy with the lenses that Hasselblad provides.

 

On 3/13/2021 at 9:14 AM, BernardC said:

That's a funny thing about Fuji's system. On the one hand, owners are always telling us that the lenses are amazing. One the other hand, owners desperately want better lenses to put on their cameras. It seems contradictory, but perhaps someone can explain. It's especially weird with S lenses: focal lengths overlap Fuji's lenses, and the S lenses are more expensive. In a normal world, you would want to use the native lens 100% of the time, but there's something strange going on in the Fuji world. Perhaps people are starting to realize that it's very hard to get 100MP of information on a sensor, even with IBIS and every AF mode. The answer is the same as it's ever been: tripod, manual focus, shoot at dawn on a clear day (no heat haze), optimal apertures, camera movements, etc. That will get you a sharp picture, but not necessarily a compelling one.

You almost never hear that about the X1D, even though you can adapt lenses onto that platform. People seem happy with the lenses that Hasselblad provides.

The reason that Fuji shooters are obsessed withth  adapters is because they are cheap, having spent their life savings on the body, and can't afford to buy the fuji glass.  Seriously.  I've never been able to stay in a fuji forum, they are just filled with amateurs with lots of confidence and no actual skill or experience.  I own both S and GFX100 systems.  Very different, both useful.  Don't underestimate the fuji lenses, particularly 32-64 and 110 f2 are excellent.

[irenedp]

On 6/29/2023 at 11:50 AM, mikelevitt said:

 

The reason that Fuji shooters are obsessed withth  adapters is because they are cheap, having spent their life savings on the body, and can't afford to buy the fuji glass.  Seriously.  I've never been able to stay in a fuji forum, they are just filled with amateurs with lots of confidence and no actual skill or experience.  I own both S and GFX100 systems.  Very different, both useful.  Don't underestimate the fuji lenses, particularly 32-64 and 110 f2 are excellent.

I also found that the 32-64 and the 110 were particularly good, possibly on par with some of the Leica S lenses, and not quite with the Schneider Kreuznach. 
The Fuji lenses don’t perform as well with the 100 as with the 50s, but that was expectable. Considering that their price is a fraction of that of a Leica or Phase One lens it is still a merit. 

Still I feel happier with my Ss. Color is much better and definition too, as long as one takes care of the shutter speed. 

[mikelevitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, irenedp said:

I also found that the 32-64 and the 110 were particularly good, possibly on par with some of the Leica S lenses, and not quite with the Schneider Kreuznach. 
The Fuji lenses don’t perform as well with the 100 as with the 50s, but that was expectable. Considering that their price is a fraction of that of a Leica or Phase One lens it is still a merit. 

Still I feel happier with my Ss. Color is much better and definition too, as long as one takes care of the shutter speed. 

I love them both for different reasons.  If I'm shooting something that's going to end up being blown up on the side of a building, the Fuji files really hold up.  I do shoot a lot of life-size cutouts of people on the Fuji, and when they are printed you can walk right up to them and they are crisp and grainless.  The files have great color depth and fidelity in a modern, bright, clinical manner.  I use it for cars in the studio, and the detail is stunning.  I use it for motion shots, and even though I have to shoot jpegs (because of the stupid SD cards and small buffer - RAW files choke it instantly) there is enough dynamic range even in the jpegs to do miracles in post.

The S makes art.

Both great, totally different.

And the S and a CS lens saved my ass a few weeks ago when I planned a outdoor night shoot that got moved up before sunset.  It's amazing what burying the background 3 extra stops with a 1/1000 flash sync can do.

 

[irenedp]

6 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

I love them both for different reasons.  If I'm shooting something that's going to end up being blown up on the side of a building, the Fuji files really hold up.  I do shoot a lot of life-size cutouts of people on the Fuji, and when they are printed you can walk right up to them and they are crisp and grainless.  The files have great color depth and fidelity in a modern, bright, clinical manner.  I use it for cars in the studio, and the detail is stunning.  I use it for motion shots, and even though I have to shoot jpegs (because of the stupid SD cards and small buffer - RAW files choke it instantly) there is enough dynamic range even in the jpegs to do miracles in post.

The S makes art.

Both great, totally different.

And the S and a CS lens saved my ass a few weeks ago when I planned a outdoor night shoot that got moved up before sunset.  It's amazing what burying the background 3 extra stops with a 1/1000 flash sync can do.

 

I usually print and exhibit in large sizes. I can attest that both GFX 50s and 100 files are perfectly ok in that respect.  The 32-64 is excellent and so is the 110  I was never too happy with the 100-200

I still think that Leica S and Phase One files have an edge in definition and more neutral color, particularly compared with the 100. I’ve also seen discrepancy in color between the GFX 100 and the Hasselblad 100.  In my view the old 50s defined better, possibly due to the lower resolution. 

[irenedp]

1st image is taken with the GFX 100 and the 32-64. Image #2 with the Leica S2 and a Mamiya t/s 50 (a composite of three images). Image #3 with a Phase One IQ4 and a Schneider 35 mm (a composite in two rows of 14 images). The GFX and the S2 images were taken with minutes of difference, the IQ4 is recent.

The Phase Image was developed in C1 and edited in Photoshop. The other 2 are developed in Lightroom, with Adobe Color and edited in Photoshop. I use only LR to adjust exposure, highlights and shadows, any further editing is done in photoshop. Color is unchanged in all three,

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!

[Pieter12]

12 hours ago, mikelevitt said:

 If I'm shooting something that's going to end up being blown up on the side of a building, the Fuji files really hold up.

Just a nit. You may be giving an exaggerated example, but you don't need high resolution for something like that. It is viewed from a distance and one can't really appreciate fine detail. I have seen billboards made from 35mm chromes that look just fine.

[irenedp]

9 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Just a nit. You may be giving an exaggerated example, but you don't need high resolution for something like that. It is viewed from a distance and one can't really appreciate fine detail. I have seen billboards made from 35mm chromes that look just fine.

I agree. Billboards, in particular, don't need large resolution. They are usually printed at 10 to 30 ppi. In wall art, the minimal resolution is at 180 ppi, and usually printers ask for either 240 or 300. I print regularly artwork for exhibition at 200, but that is obviously a far cry from the 30 needed for a billboard.

Just as an illustration, a Fuji GFX 100 image gives in its original format 92x123 cm at 240 ppi. If the resolution is changed to 180, size moves to 123x164 cm. At 30 (billboard print resolution) 739x986 (of 21x27 ft). Obviously a much smaller resolution would suffice for a billboard. 

It all depends on the medium. 

[frame-it]

27 minutes ago, irenedp said:

I agree. Billboards, in particular, don't need large resolution. They are usually printed at 10 to 30 ppi.

ive seen billboards in korea and japan that are 300dpi, crystal clear and gorgeous up close. every region is different.

[irenedp]

46 minutes ago, frame-it said:

ive seen billboards in korea and japan that are 300dpi, crystal clear and gorgeous up close. every region is different.

DPI it is possible, for sure, because it is related to the resolution of the printer (a good explanation herehttps://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00027623). 

To get an image like the ad on the screen atop of the building at 300 ppi, you would need an "interesting" camera. It is probably at 72, what you need for a screen. No idea about the print resolution of the one on the side. It is crystal clear too. 

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!

Edited July 2, 2023 by irenedp
typo

[frame-it]

3 minutes ago, irenedp said:

DPI it is possible, for sure, because it is related to the resolution of the printer (a good explanation herehttps://www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00027623). 

To get an image like the ad on the screen atop of the building at 300 ppi, you would need an "interesting" camera. It is probably at 72, what you need for a screen. No idea about the print resolution of the one on the side. It is crystal clear too. 

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!

i don't know what the image you posted is, but ive seen prints at 300DPi [before mounting], for 60ft billboards of cars and skin care products.

[irenedp]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

ive seen billboards in korea and japan that are 300dpi, crystal clear and gorgeous up close. every region is different.

DPI is not the same, and not directly related, to the resolution of a camera. It is the resolution/density at which the printing device prints. 

To print billboards you don’t need very high PPI (although photographers tend to use either large format cameras or high resolution medium format digitals).  Nevertheless, besides the Sony Corp link I posted, here’s a technical discussion chat specific about billboards. https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3651/what-dpi-ppi-should-a-4-by-6-meter-outdoor-billboard-be-designed-at

But nevertheless this seems a side topic, more related to the digital post processing forum  

(the place the image was taken is Tokyo, a few months back). 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by irenedp
clarifying.

[frame-it]

11 minutes ago, irenedp said:

DPI is not the same, and not directly related, to the resolution of a camera. It is the resolution at which the printing device prints. 

To print billboards you don’t need very high PPI (although photographers tend to use either large format cameras or high resolution medium format digitals).  Nevertheless, besides the Sony Corp link I posted, here’s a technical discussion chat specific about billboards. https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3651/what-dpi-ppi-should-a-4-by-6-meter-outdoor-billboard-be-designed-at

(the place the image was taken is Tokyo, a few months back). 

so can you get a 60ft billboard PRINT that looks like the quality on your retina display screen if you stand 30 cm from it from a low 18mp-24mp camera?

 

here they use GFX or hasselblad for those kind of prints, which was my whole point.

Edited July 2, 2023 by frame-it

[irenedp]

23 minutes ago, frame-it said:

so can you get a 60ft billboard PRINT that looks like the quality on your retina display screen if you stand 30 cm from it from a low 18mp-24mp camera?

 

here they use GFX or hasselblad for those kind of prints, which was my whole point.

 

27 minutes ago, frame-it said:

so can you get a 60ft billboard PRINT that looks like the quality on your retina display screen if you stand 30 cm from it from a low 18mp-24mp camera?

 

here they use GFX or hasselblad for those kind of prints, which was my whole point.

On the occasional case when I am asked to produce something for an ad, I use a Phase One, which has a higher resolution than the GFX. I used a GFX 100 before, and before that a large format camera. But the person who said that billboards can be printed at lower resolutions is apparently right, as can be seen from the technical discussions.

I enclose an article on the topic by Fstoppers. The table on distance and resolution is quite telling.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

 

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!

[frame-it]

3 minutes ago, irenedp said:

 

On the occasional case when I am asked to produce something for an ad, I use a Phase One, which has a higher resolution than the GFX. I used a GFX 100 before, and before that a large format camera. But the person who said that billboards can be printed at lower resolutions is apparently right, as can be seen from the technical discussions.

I enclose an article on the topic by Fstoppers. The table on distance and resolution is quite telling.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

 

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!

yes yes  yes, i know they can be printed at very low resolutions, im simply talking about clients who want that super resolution quality [with as little scaling as possible] and the cameras that would be used.

Edited July 2, 2023 by frame-it

[Pieter12]

12 hours ago, frame-it said:

yes yes  yes, i know they can be printed at very low resolutions, im simply talking about clients who want that super resolution quality [with as little scaling as possible] and the cameras that would be used.

When I worked as an Art Director, I never once asked or specified the type of camera, film or other equipment to be used on a job. I hired the photographer and based on the portfolio and/or prior experience or references, trusted them to make the proper decision. The only time I questioned that decision was when an established photographer I hired told me he was going to shoot 35mm for a photo to be used as a 20x30" poster. He wanted the flexibility of movement afforded by a smaller, hand-held camera, used Kodachrome (I don't recall if it was 25 or 64) and the results were fantastic.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mikelevitt]

On 7/1/2023 at 8:55 AM, irenedp said:

I usually print and exhibit in large sizes. I can attest that both GFX 50s and 100 files are perfectly ok in that respect.  The 32-64 is excellent and so is the 110  I was never too happy with the 100-200

I still think that Leica S and Phase One files have an edge in definition and more neutral color, particularly compared with the 100. I’ve also seen discrepancy in color between the GFX 100 and the Hasselblad 100.  In my view the old 50s defined better, possibly due to the lower resolution. 

I agree on the 100-200.  It makes me cringe to pick it up.  Waste of money.   45-100 is OK, but a step down from the 110.  23 is top notch.  50 3.5 is good for what it is.  80 1.7 is excellent but not quite as good as the 110.  I think the 110 is sharper than anything is the S line, but that might just be me mistaking contrast for sharpness.  If only they had put professional cards and a bigger buffer in the camera it would be dangerous....

I haven't had a Phase back since my old H25 (on Hasselblad V), but the newer ones (mamiya-based) always felt from the outside like amazing backs paired to a mediocre camera system...

Edited July 3, 2023 by mikelevitt