100MP grade camera

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shortly after GFX 100S, Fujifilm is rumored to release another GFX 100 replacement, to fix its problems of size, price, and ergo again.

I wonder, exactly what people care about 100mp grade camera.

when Leica release S3, perhaps the major improvement that people talked most is the color rendering, especially in skin tone. The 37.+ to 60+ more pixels are almost irrelevant. 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[tom.w.bn]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb Einst_Stein:

Shortly after GFX 100S, Fujifilm is rumored to release another GFX 100 replacement, to fix its problems of size, price, and ergo again.

I wonder, exactly what people care about 100mp grade camera.

 

 

In 2019 your post made more sense to me because the first GFX 100 had size and price issues. I don't think that the current GFX 100S has a size and price issue. What's the problem with the ergonomics of the current camera? I would like to try one with my Mamiya lenses.

 

[irenedp]

I had a GFX 100 and a Phase One, and I traded out the GFX for an S3. 

Said that, for certain type of work -art in wall, for example- a 100 mp camera makes sense. The 66 MP of the S3 give a very nice size but one of the reasons I keep the Phase -apart from the quality of the digital negatives- is the print size without interpolation. 

[Pieter12]

Big prints are nice. But who has the wall space for more than a few? I can barely put up 1/50th of my collection of modest size prints. Not to mention paintings and some mixed-media, 3D art.

[Einst_Stein]

48 minutes ago, Pieter12 said:

Big prints are nice. But who has the wall space for more than a few? I can barely put up 1/50th of my collection of modest size prints. Not to mention paintings and some mixed-media, 3D art.

I use 4K 75” and 85” in my display room. Pretty amazing.  The size does matter, I mean, compare to 55”. I have 8K 75” coming in a week. 
Guess what resolution it requires? 
By the way, I also have a room with a panorama print that takes almost half the wall. The upper half. It looks different from the TV display, I can’t say which is better, but I am going for high quality TV in the future. To me, TV‘s vivid color far exceeds the prints, regardless the display lighting. 

[ZHNL]

I don’t think 100M is the reason I go with either system. I don’t need sell print to bring food on table. There are many way to get pixel much cheaper way: stitch, high resolution mode, pixel digital up resolution etc…
I don’t know others, for me, it is about usability of the system. I’d appreciate articulate LCD, 5 plus stop of IBIS, fast and reliable AF if possible. Keep all S ergo and menu system, which is a huge plus for the system. I will keep 006 forever and it is still the most enjoyable OVF system I ever used that produce the best looking color file to my eyes.  However, if Leica brought S004 with X2D like size, IBIS and performance, I will preorder it and use S glasses I have right now. I have zero complain on S glasses performance.

[Pieter12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

I use 4K 75” and 85” in my display room. Pretty amazing.  The size does matter, I mean, compare to 55”. I have 8K 75” coming in a week. 
Guess what resolution it requires? 
By the way, I also have a room with a panorama print that takes almost half the wall. The upper half. It looks different from the TV display, I can’t say which is better, but I am going for high quality TV in the future. To me, TV‘s vivid color far exceeds the prints, regardless the display lighting. 

I hardly even turn on my TV except for the news. I don't think I would want to suck electrons displaying photos on my wall. I like something a both  more subtle and tangible.

[davidmknoble]

Interesting and age-old conversation.  Remember the M8 to M9 difference in sensors?  12 - 19 megapixels made a difference.  Also, remember the target audience originally for the S system was professional (as I suspect the Phase One and other larger sensors were).  The lenses were made to to work with higher density pixels and still draw really well.  

The same is true with Ilford F-Pan ISO 50 black and white film and Kodak Tri-X ISO 400 film.  The slower speed films typically have a tighter grain and show finer level details as a result (let alone the shallower density curve showing more tonal separation).  Most landscape photographers won’t use ISO 400 and then print a 17x22 image from a 35mm negative.  Even better, enter the Hasselblad system and compare 120mm film to 35mm - there is no comparison.  I print 12x12 from a 120 scanned negative and there is no grain (lower ISO films) which just doesn’t happen at 35mm.  Yet, looking at a 4x6, I couldn’t tell the difference.

Do I need it?  Depends on what I’m doing, but there is a tangible difference from 35mm to 120mm at the right size.

The same is true here.  The original SL system (24mp) was a great mirrorless start.  I had the SL2 briefly (didn’t like the dynamic range at all) and when I put Leica R glass on that body, the resulting images were incredible - with specific lenses.  For example, the R 80mm f/1.4 lens wide open and at f/2 was incredible on the higher megapixel body, because the nuances of the wide open aperture were fully shown.  A 24mp image muddies up the wide open apertures because the lens has more detail to give than the sensor can show.  Yet the MTF graph for the 80 1.4 wide open has some really low contrast at the finest details.

My point is that the higher megapixel sensors have their place and they also tend to show the full capability of a lens that might otherwise look ‘meh’ on a lower pixel sensor and allows cropping in post while still retaining a reasonably sized digital neg.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 7/16/2023 at 7:04 PM, Pieter12 said:

Big prints are nice. But who has the wall space for more than a few? I can barely put up 1/50th of my collection of modest size prints. Not to mention paintings and some mixed-media, 3D art.

Museums...and galleries. Try to fill a museum with top quality photos in a given project, and you may find that it is helpful to use larger prints not only to engage the space, but also in order to create a dialog among different works in a given show. Museum spaces are also so large that small works can feel quite tiny. That works for some projects, but not for others. 100mp is really not that much more than 50 or 60mp in terms of outright resolution, as the number of pixels multiply pretty quickly. Until printers are maxing out the resolution of very large prints, then there is still "something to gain". Big prints are harder to sell for the reason you mention, but they also make it easier to charge more too in certain cases. Unless you are already well known as an artist, it can be a bit easier to get someone to pay 2000 dollars for a 40x60 inch print vs 1000 for a 20x24 inch print, even if it is the same photo. That stuff is just human psychology. Obviously for consumers a 100mp camera is likely going to be overkill, but despite Leica selling primarily to wealthy amateurs, the gear is still primarily designed for professionals. This is the case with a camera like the GFX as well. Fuji has a number of cameras in APS-C designed with more modest resolutions that are more than enough for most of the market. The S is a camera aimed squarely at professionals, at least in terms of how it is designed, and therefore I think the S system, if it continues, will continue to increase in resolution. That was the main reason I bought the S3 after being with the S006 for six years. The S007 was not an improvement to my eyes. In the end, I did not like it, but that had less to do with resolution than other factors (although in the end I would say the resolution is better in the SL2 because of the sharper, more even lenses and the stabilization, more accurate focus etc).

[Pieter12]

Museums and galleries, of course. But how many on this forum get exhibited in such? Sure large is more impressive and probably easier to sell, but unless you are a blue-chip photographer you won't command very high prices, even for a large print. And the cost of making a 40x60 print (around $450 in my neighborhood) really eats into the profit made by the photographer, given that the gallery takes 50% off the top, and often the photographer is on the hook for at least the mounting and or matting (a bit hard to do at that size).

All these thoughts occurred to me yesterday when I went gallery hopping to a number of local photo galleries.

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Museums and galleries, of course. But how many on this forum get exhibited in such?

That was partially my point. They are not necessarily making these cameras for people on this forum. They are making them for professional photographers and to a lesser extent, practicing artists. That said, I do know at least three or four photographers on here who have exhibited in museums and galleries, myself among them (come to my show at the Reykjavik Museum of Photography, it is up from January-May 2024...). I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. Megapixels bring more than just sheer resolution, they also improve tonality, reduce moiré and allow for more accurate color, better aberration correction and so on. In my own experience at least, the large prints I do in galleries and museums are often sold in a smaller size to clients, or the institution will purchase it in the original size. As for cost of production, that is always going to vary. I run my own lab and print exhibitions for others, so the cost to me is just materials and time, but I typically charge less than 450 for a 40x60 print (we are talking inches I hope!). I am charging somewhat less than that, but your price is not so far off. Materials costs are insane these days unfortunately...Hahnemuhle's prices have roughly doubled in the last few years and that certainly does affect the calculation regarding print size.

[Pieter12]

17 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

That was partially my point. They are not necessarily making these cameras for people on this forum. They are making them for professional photographers and to a lesser extent, practicing artists. That said, I do know at least three or four photographers on here who have exhibited in museums and galleries, myself among them (come to my show at the Reykjavik Museum of Photography, it is up from January-May 2024...). I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. Megapixels bring more than just sheer resolution, they also improve tonality, reduce moiré and allow for more accurate color, better aberration correction and so on. In my own experience at least, the large prints I do in galleries and museums are often sold in a smaller size to clients, or the institution will purchase it in the original size. As for cost of production, that is always going to vary. I run my own lab and print exhibitions for others, so the cost to me is just materials and time, but I typically charge less than 450 for a 40x60 print (we are talking inches I hope!). I am charging somewhat less than that, but your price is not so far off. Materials costs are insane these days unfortunately...Hahnemuhle's prices have roughly doubled in the last few years and that certainly does affect the calculation regarding print size.

Congratulations. A group or solo show? I regret I cannot make to Iceland for the show, but I would love to see the work. Do you have a website?

[irenedp]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

That was partially my point. They are not necessarily making these cameras for people on this forum. They are making them for professional photographers and to a lesser extent, practicing artists. That said, I do know at least three or four photographers on here who have exhibited in museums and galleries, myself among them (come to my show at the Reykjavik Museum of Photography, it is up from January-May 2024...). I am sure there are more that I am not aware of. Megapixels bring more than just sheer resolution, they also improve tonality, reduce moiré and allow for more accurate color, better aberration correction and so on. In my own experience at least, the large prints I do in galleries and museums are often sold in a smaller size to clients, or the institution will purchase it in the original size. As for cost of production, that is always going to vary. I run my own lab and print exhibitions for others, so the cost to me is just materials and time, but I typically charge less than 450 for a 40x60 print (we are talking inches I hope!). I am charging somewhat less than that, but your price is not so far off. Materials costs are insane these days unfortunately...Hahnemuhle's prices have roughly doubled in the last few years and that certainly does affect the calculation regarding print size.

I live the same thing. My work goes fundamentally to books and exhibitions. I print for myself and other photographers -people from my old school- and that keeps usually the costs down. Because my work is documentary, it is hard to sell to others apart from private collectors or institutions, and I usually print on large sizes. On the other hand, I photograph artwork, which usually requires large size digital originals to be able to appreciate detail. A high resolution mf camera is paramount. 

 

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 21, 2023 by irenedp
correction

[irenedp]

All the images in this exhibition -still ongoing- are either A1 or A0 tall. This one is 2.70 m wide

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!

[BernardC]

On 7/20/2023 at 5:55 AM, davidmknoble said:

I print 12x12 from a 120 scanned negative and there is no grain (lower ISO films) which just doesn’t happen at 35mm.  Yet, looking at a 4x6, I couldn’t tell the difference.

My experience is different. There is a difference in a small print, at least with optical prints.

It isn't something that only photographers can see. I remember showing my Mom some small proofs from a family event, back when I was in uni. Some were 35, some 6x7. When she saw the 6x7 prints, her immediate reaction was "oh, those are nice!"

Theory tells us that any difference should be invisible at those sizes, but it's not the same in real life.

[Stuart Richardson]

9 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Congratulations. A group or solo show? I regret I cannot make to Iceland for the show, but I would love to see the work. Do you have a website?

Thank you, it is a solo show. The work (Undercurrent) is on my website, though the site itself is hopelessly out of date. You might have to scroll down to find it. Most was film, but some was the S or SL2. In any case, the biggest print from the S in the show is 55x67 inches...more of a paper wall hanging, as it is unframed. But the size is really pushing it for the S006 (I added film grain to help even it out). I would have certainly preferred 100+mp...

Edited July 21, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[Pieter12]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you, it is a solo show. The work (Undercurrent) is on my website, though the site itself is hopelessly out of date. You might have to scroll down to find it. Most was film, but some was the S or SL2. In any case, the biggest print from the S in the show is 55x67 inches...more of a paper wall hanging, as it is unframed. But the size is really pushing it for the S006 (I added film grain to help even it out). I would have certainly preferred 100+mp...

Nice work. I can see why you want to print large, given the scale of the subjects. My work is a bit more intimate, I like to keep the prints much smaller--10x10"--plus much of it is on film, and that is about the limit of what I can do in my own darkroom. At least I haven't run into any storage problems yet!

[Pieter12]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you, it is a solo show. The work (Undercurrent) is on my website, though the site itself is hopelessly out of date. You might have to scroll down to find it. Most was film, but some was the S or SL2. In any case, the biggest print from the S in the show is 55x67 inches...more of a paper wall hanging, as it is unframed. But the size is really pushing it for the S006 (I added film grain to help even it out). I would have certainly preferred 100+mp...

Your work brings to mind one of the shows I saw the other day, Johnathan Smith at Danziger Gallery. The large scale, graphic icescapes were my favorites. No idea what he shot with. http://www.jonathansmithphotography.com

[davidmknoble]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

My experience is different. There is a difference in a small print, at least with optical prints.

Sorry, Bernard, I was really talking about sharpness and detail.  I think the medium format look is easier to see even in a small print, but ‘technically’ there isn’t as much difference although as @Stuart Richardson points out, yes the tonality is much smoother in the larger size negatives / sensors.  Poor choice of words on my part.  I agree with what you said.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jon Warwick]

The visible difference in resolution from 60mp (M11) to GFX100S is a lot less than one might think, for example looking at both for up to 50” wide prints; I generally see only immaculate technique (focus, tripod, no diffraction) showing the advantage of the 100mp and even then it’s really pretty subtle. I think part of it (at least with the M11) is the lenses can be exceptionally good such as the APO Lanthars, which can reduce the resolution advantage of the 100mp even further. The M11 files also seem to resample bigger very well too, again perhaps because the chain is very lossless with a precisely recorded base file via the excellent lenses one can get for the M mount. The bigger difference I see between my M11 and GFX100 is more to do with “rendering” of the output, IMHO the Leica’s output for whatever reason is a bit more filmic / less digital to my eyes.

 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jon Warwick