Thinking of taking the plunge into MF. S3 or Fuji GFX 100s?

[overexposed]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the aperture rings are not mechanical and the sensor flange is too short

[Stuart Richardson]

There is plenty of sensor flange distance...the S lenses would bolt on the GFX just fine, as they are for an SLR. Fotodiox made an adapter but they messed it up so that the lenses will not focus to infinity, and they are selling them anyway. I asked about it, and they said they are basically waiting to sell out the broken ones before fixing it. Kind of baffling, but there you go. The lenses do not have aperture rings...it is electronically controlled, so when you use S lenses on the GFX, they are typically stuck wide open. If you have an S body or L mount body with S adapter L, you can stop the lens down to the aperture of choice and remove it from the camera, and it will be stuck at that aperture. It is not the most convenient way to work, but it is a solution. I suspect that using Fuji's very good lenses would be the best way to go in most cases.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Sarnian]

4 hours ago, overexposed said:

the aperture rings are not mechanical and the sensor flange is too short

Shame.

Thanks

 

[mgrayson3]

Just my personal extremely biased opinion, but:

Unless you are adapting a completely mechanical lens, just don't. They may work today, but software changes, and incompatibilities creep in, and they get more frustrating over time. Or they just fail to work, or cause IBIS to work the wrong way so you have to turn it off, or... If a lens has a special look you want, get a body for which that lens is native. I used Contax 645 lenses on the S before I got S glass, and when the S lenses were getting motor upgrades, but not otherwise.

[davidmknoble]

15 hours ago, Sarnian said:

I wonder if it's possible to stick a GF lens on some kind of adapter to use on the S? They have manual aperture rings. 

Not unless the flange distance from mount to sensor on the GF cameras is longer than the Leica S. Since it is SLR and I think Fuji is mirrorless probably not???

 

sorry missed the replies. This is redundant. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by davidmknoble

[davidmknoble]

9 hours ago, mgrayson3 said:

Just my personal extremely biased opinion, but:

Unless you are adapting a completely mechanical lens, just don't. They may work today, but software changes, and incompatibilities creep in, and they get more frustrating over time. Or they just fail to work, or cause IBIS to work the wrong way so you have to turn it off, or... If a lens has a special look you want, get a body for which that lens is native. I used Contax 645 lenses on the S before I got S glass, and when the S lenses were getting motor upgrades, but not otherwise.

Agreed.  There is significant work done to pair lens and camera. The SL is probably one of the few that gets away with more variance in lens types.  I use R, M, S and Nikon Ais on the SL but only S on the S. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by davidmknoble

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, as a GFX100S owner with a GF 63m lens, I personally have found the lens to be very good indeed, such that I don't now have the desire to bolt on anything Leica via an adapter.

IMHO, with no post processing, my observation of the SL and S output is that their lovely rendering does feel slightly more "gentle" than the GFX100S .....but now I wonder just how much of this is due to different inherent contrasts of the Fuji GFX100S output vs Leica SL/S output, ie, is the former inherently higher contrast with blacks that are more jet black and where shadows are less open than the SL/S output?

For example, when I start to work on GFX files in-post to encourage more detail in the shadows and even slightly reduce color saturation, they start very quickly to get that more gentle rendering that I think I liked about the SL/S output. Even applying something as quick as Fuji's "Eterna / Cinema" camera profile in RAW essentially pushes the look in that direction, mainly because that Fuji profile reduces some of the contrast to create softer shadows etc. IMHO I think Leica created that look well anyhow in camera, but I've found various post-processing options to get me to a gentler look that I equally like with the GFX100S.  Aside from post processing, clearly there is a ton of various diffusion filters, used especially in the cinema world to take the "edge" off modern digital cameras & lenses (eg, think of the aesthetic challenge of 4K), by variously increasing halation / lowering contrast that I'm also looking at for stills photography to achieve this rendering at the time of capture itself. 

Anyhow, beyond the logistics of trying to get an adapted S lens to work on a GFX, those are also reasons why I'd personally stick to native lenses for any given camera!

Edited August 1, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[mgrayson3]

9 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

FWIW, as a GFX100S owner with a GF 63m lens, I personally have found the lens to be very good indeed, such that I don't now have the desire to bolt on anything Leica via an adapter.

IMHO, my observation of the SL and S output is that their lovely rendering does feel slightly more "gentle" than the GFX100S with no post processing.....but now I wonder just how much of this is due to different inherent contrasts of the Fuji GFX100S output vs Leica SL/S output, ie, is the former inherently higher contrast with blacks that are more jet black and where shadows are less open than the SL/S output?

For example, when I start to work on GFX files in-post to encourage more detail in the shadows and even slightly reduce color saturation, they start very quickly to get that more gentle rendering that I think I liked about the SL/S output. Even applying something as quick as Fuji's "Eterna / Cinema" camera profile in RAW essentially pushes the look in that direction, mainly because that Fuji profile reduces some of the contrast to create softer shadows etc. IMHO I think Leica created that look well anyhow in camera, but I've found various post-processing options to get me to a gentler look that I equally like with the GFX100S.  Aside from post processing, clearly there is a ton of various diffusion filters, used especially in the cinema world to take the "edge" off modern digital cameras & lenses (eg, think of the aesthetic challenge of 4K), by variously increasing halation / lowering contrast that I'm also looking at for stills photography to achieve this rendering at the time of capture itself. 

Anyhow, beyond the logistics of trying to get an adapted S lens to work on a GFX, those are also reasons why I'd personally stick to native lenses for any given camera!

This is an EXTREMELY important point. What we call "camera" comparisons are almost always "converter default" comparisons. It is usually possible to get any system's output to look very similar to any other's. The issues are 1) how hard is it to get what you want and 2) how often do you find yourself at the edge where the images start to "fall apart". I tend to make extreme changes to the color responses in BW conversions. My little Fuji X camera has nice color, but it can't hold the smoothness and contrast that the S does under those conversion parameters. The GFX 100 had slightly odd colors (to me!) and it took more work to get them into the Leica S ballpark, which is where I wanted to be. If I'd spent more time making a profile, it might have become a non-issue.

[Sarnian]

I have an adapter that allows me to use Pentax 645 lenses on my 007 so any lenses that are adapted for the Pentax 645 range of cameras (and that are manual focus and have a mechanical aperture ring) work perfectly on my S. The tiny Pentax 645 A 75mm is a beauty. 

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!

[davidmknoble]

I don’t have experience with the GFX system, just older Fuji X1 Pro and XT-2.  But even from what @Jon Warwick is saying, I think past the idea of keeping native lenses on cameras, the detail sharpness is only part of the equation.  I am not comparing the GFX to the SL or M system, but with the S system the lenses draw differently because they were made for an SLR.  So, the view typically has much less distortion.  The other thing I see about the S lenses is the fall off in front and behind the focus plane is just incredibly smooth.

I worry that with the 60-100 mp range the image can be downsampled to get rid of harshness or differences in fingerprints, but at some more native print size, the differences show up more (ie. Say 17x22, so not billboard size).  

I also think it is the photographer and working with equipment for a period of time allows you to get efficient with post processing, so agreed with @mgrayson3, the amount of time I have for post processing is less, but equally as important.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter which system you use, but that you use it to the best potential and understand its strengths and weaknesses.  I have grown fond over the last year of the R lenses, some latest and some version 1.  They were made as SLR lenses the same as the S lenses and they draw nicely, albeit some with less contrast, but all nice falloff before and after the focus plane.  What I found was the SL2 was well designed to take these non-native lenses and maybe the GFX, as a mirrorless, has that ability as well.

I don’t believe the S needs third party lenses except longer than the 180mm.

Nice discussion!

 

[ropo54]

50 minutes ago, Sarnian said:

I have an adapter that allows me to use Pentax 645 lenses on my 007 so any lenses that are adapted for the Pentax 645 range of cameras (and that are manual focus and have a mechanical aperture ring) work perfectly on my S. The tiny Pentax 645 A 75mm is a beauty. 

 

Hi Sarnian:

Which adapter do you use for the Pentax 645 lenses?

Any other Pentax 645 lenses besides the 645 A 75mm?

Thanks, 

Rob

[Sarnian]

50 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

Hi Sarnian:

Which adapter do you use for the Pentax 645 lenses?

Any other Pentax 645 lenses besides the 645 A 75mm?

Thanks, 

Rob

Hi Rob,

It's not a commercially-produced adapter. A guy in Singapore makes them to order. 

I've also used the Pentax FA 33-55mm (in manual focus mode). As the S sensor is smaller than the Pentax 645 film area only the central, 'sweet spot' area of the lens is used. Don't get me wrong, the lenses are nowhere near as good as Leica lenses but they're aren't any Leica lenses that you can slip in your pocket!  

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!

[mgrayson3]

After carrying around the S24 and S120, the S70 feels like a pocket lens 😇. It's actually superb for both sharpness and bokeh, and is my "carry in a snowstorm" lens, as changing lenses in foul weather is ill-advised.

[ropo54]

1 hour ago, Sarnian said:

Hi Rob,

It's not a commercially-produced adapter. A guy in Singapore makes them to order. 

I've also used the Pentax FA 33-55mm (in manual focus mode). As the S sensor is smaller than the Pentax 645 film area only the central, 'sweet spot' area of the lens is used. Don't get me wrong, the lenses are nowhere near as good as Leica lenses but they're aren't any Leica lenses that you can slip in your pocket!  

 

Yes, that's the appeal!  As Matt notes above, comparatively the S 70 (and for me, the S100) are my preferred options because of their size, but the Pentax options might be worth exploring.

(Thinking about selling my S24, S45, and S180 w close focus adapter because as a hobbyist I just don't want to be carrying their weight with other lenses).

Thanks,

Rob

Edited August 1, 2021 by ropo54

[Chandra]

Hi Rob,

May I suggest you keep the 24. Its an outstanding lens for landscapes/interiors as you may have experienced and the only super wide for the S.

Well,  just my (unsolicited) suggestion.

[ropo54]

1 minute ago, Chandra said:

Hi Rob,

May I suggest you keep the 24. Its an outstanding lens for landscapes/interiors as you may have experienced and the only super wide for the S.

Well,  just my (unsolicited) suggestion.

I know, I know! (Appreciate your thoughts, too).

I'm on the fence about selling any of my lenses.  Maybe it's just lockdown fever.

Rob

 

[Sarnian]

3 hours ago, Chandra said:

Hi Rob,

May I suggest you keep the 24. Its an outstanding lens for landscapes/interiors as you may have experienced and the only super wide for the S.

Would the Hasselblad HCD 24mm be a cheaper just-as-wide alternative?

I've listed my 24mm S lens on eBay.co.uk as I have the converted Samyang 24mm to fulfil this super wide angle role. The Samyang only cost me £650 and it's 95% as good (albeit manual focus). 

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!

Samyang on the left, Leica on the right.

[Arif]

I had most of the same "internal conversations" and that is why I picked up and tried a GFX100s in the first place.  The GFX100s + the 50/3.5 mm not only has autofocus but also is smaller and lighter than the S+Pentax lenses (I also have the same Pentax adapter) and for me the quality of the output has been much higher so I sold all my Pentax lenses. I am still holding on to the S24 but the 23 on the GFX is considered among their best/sharpest so am seriously debating changing it.

[Sarnian]

Can one use the Leica WATE 16-18-21mm on the GFX100S?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, Sarnian said:

Can one use the Leica WATE 16-18-21mm on the GFX100S?

It will fit, given the appropriate adapter, but the last third of the frame (the part that is beyond a 35mm-format lens's image circle) probably won't be sharp, and may vignette. That can be a cool effect with some lenses, of course.