SL3 vs. Fuji GFX 100 II

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a recent test, I got better results using LPC with 24-70 than with TSE 24 shifted to max.

[Jeff S]

10 hours ago, elmars said:

When it comes to the printer, the manufacturer plays almost no role. Canon and Epson deliver the same excellent quality with their fine art inkjet printers.

 

To avoid going too much OT, interested readers should explore the DPP section of the forum, where related topics have been thoroughly discussed.
 

There are indeed technological and other differences between printer manufacturers, e.g., hot-firing Canon print heads that mandate automatic cleanings vs Epson’s use of cold firing heads and more user-initiated clean cycles. Print frequency and ink usage can be a factor in choosing machines, as can print size, ink sets and cartridge size, ability to switch from glossy to matte papers and inks, etc.

The most important factor in print quality, however, is user ability, just like for the rest of photography; otherwise we’d all get the same quality pics using identical gear, which thankfully is rarely the case.

Jeff

 

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

In a recent test, I got better results using LPC with 24-70 than with TSE 24 shifted to max.

That’s an interesting point. I’ve been impressed by how the image quality has held up with LPC, and it’s really nice to have the pre-visualisation that LPC provides in terms of in-camera composition. Something gratifying about LPC’s relative accuracy compared to just a rough eyeball guess before using perspective control in post production. 

[John Smith]

On 8/19/2024 at 9:51 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have both:

The GFX is larger and noticeably heavier.

The GFX EVF is the best there currently is.

The IBIS is better on the SL3.

IQ is better on the GFX, even cropped, if you shoot 16 bit on the GFX. It's not a massive difference though. But there's a definite difference to 100MP. The SL3 may be best in class in small format but it's not completely matching the larger sensor.

Any lens on the GFX out resolves any lens on the SL3. The SL APO's have the best CA control though.

The GFX AF is as good as the SL3 (possibly *slightly* better in a few cases).

The SL3 has many more lens options and more reach.

The joystick, menus and handling are better on the SL3.

For handheld use I prefer the SL3. For tripod use probably the GFX. If it were purely for the tilt shift lenses I'd go the GFX. For general shooting the SL3, for sure.

To me their use cases are different.

Gordon

One concern about the GFX system is the lenses. You say IQ is better, but Fuji’s lenses seem a bit flat. Sharp, but flat. Do you find that to be true? I know from some of Peter Karbe’s videos and interviews that Leica has put a premium on designing lenses for perceived depth. 

 

On 8/20/2024 at 12:27 PM, Photoworks said:

the question is what are you trying to shoot?
If your shooting requires GF30mmF5.6 , that is what I would get. it's supposed to be a really good optic.

the Shift options for SL3 are all adapted lenses, mostly from Canon and Schneider PC. You could find a wider range of lenses on the Canon mount.

Fuji offers only 30 and 100mm. 30 is probably 24mm in full frame. It is popular but sometimes/often you need wider.

A college of mine was using the Canon cameras and the GFX side by side and went back to Canon. for him, the fuji had too many issues with the software remote and limits on shifting lenses.

I use a bunch of tilt-shift lenses and they work fine on my camera, the SL2-3 actually adapts Canon lenses better than other brands by using the micro prism on the sensor.

The TS-E lenses from Canon don't give you the detail of a Leica SL zoom or APO lens.

GF30 is $4000 and canon lens are $2000

Architecture. From what I’ve seen, the Canon lenses are starting to show their age. I know many photographers have resorted to using Keystone in post, but I’m looking for the best in-camera solution.

[Paul2660]

You can expect full details on 15mm of shift horizontally or rise with the Fuji 30mm TS or the 110mm TS. I have used many different shift lenses and Tech cameras and the Fuji tilt lenses are excellent. 
 

Downsides are cost, weight, size and availability (availability is basically nonexistent in the US). 
 

Lr has no lens correction for either lens, C1 does. 
 

Paul

[Photoworks]

there is a detailed article comparing 3 cameras and shift lenses. you can download the images and look for yourself.

It is not the Leica in 35mm, but the Sony a7rV.  Since I used the Sony and SL2 side by side, I can tell you that the adapted lenses performed much better on the edges and corners on the Leica. the development of adapting M lenses on the SL is what makes a difference over Canon Lenses on the Sony cameras.

https://christophebenard.com/BLOG/GFX100-II---A7R-V---Phase-One-XF-Comparison/1

 

PS: I have tested many Canon Lenses TS-E 24 and 17, and they suffer from variation in the CA, it is something to keep in mind.

 

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, John Smith said:

One concern about the GFX system is the lenses. You say IQ is better, but Fuji’s lenses seem a bit flat. Sharp, but flat. Do you find that to be true? I know from some of Peter Karbe’s videos and interviews that Leica has put a premium on designing lenses for perceived depth. 

 

Architecture. From what I’ve seen, the Canon lenses are starting to show their age. I know many photographers have resorted to using Keystone in post, but I’m looking for the best in-camera solution.

I thought the GF 50mm was a bit "flat", but i'd say the opposite about the more recently launched GF 55mm lens.

The latter is excellent, and has regenerated the image quality off my GFX100S.

My copy of the GF55mm, at least, is really immaculate in terms of sharpness edge-to-edge, and the images feel very "alive".

Personally, if I was doing in-camera architecture, i would ignore the full frame tilt-shifts, and head straight for the new GF tilt-shifts on medium format.

But for full frame, for Leica, the perspective control function is very good and allows "in-camera" visualisation and composition (i use it on the M11 in live view. I find it works really well) - and with the epic SL Summicron APOs as the base files, one might lose less resolution than one might think after the keystone corrections?

Edited August 25, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[John Smith]

4 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

I thought the GF 50mm was a bit "flat", but i'd say the opposite about the more recently launched GF 55mm lens.

The latter is excellent, and has regenerated the image quality off my GFX100S.

My copy of the GF55mm, at least, is really immaculate in terms of sharpness edge-to-edge, and the images feel very "alive".

Personally, if I was doing in-camera architecture, i would ignore the full frame tilt-shifts, and head straight for the new GF tilt-shifts on medium format.

But for full frame, for Leica, the perspective control function is very good and allows "in-camera" visualisation and composition (i use it on the M11 in live view. I find it works really well) - and with the epic SL Summicron APOs as the base files, one might lose less resolution than one might think after the keystone corrections?

I decided to go with the GF tilt-shifts. I’ve never used Fuji before, but their promotional videos appear to show a dedication to making the GFX line the best system available. It’s nice to hear your comments about the new 55mm. Fortunately, I have enough overlapping Leica cameras and glass to fund a good part of it. 

[tom0511]

Here is my take as someone who has recently sold x2d, after using it side by side for quite some time with SL system.

X2d sensor I found ahead of the SL3, but not that far.

On the other side I find some Leica lenses ahead of Hassy, plus there is a better flexibility of the SL system, tele, zooms, faster lenses, AF-C, and much shorter black out when taking an image. SO for me it is the better all-round system, nearly as good IQ as medium format and nearly as flexible and fast as Canon/Nikon.

 

[John Smith]

44 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Here is my take as someone who has recently sold x2d, after using it side by side for quite some time with SL system.

X2d sensor I found ahead of the SL3, but not that far.

On the other side I find some Leica lenses ahead of Hassy, plus there is a better flexibility of the SL system, tele, zooms, faster lenses, AF-C, and much shorter black out when taking an image. SO for me it is the better all-round system, nearly as good IQ as medium format and nearly as flexible and fast as Canon/Nikon.

 

What lenses were you using with the X2D? From what I've seen, Hasselblad has made quite a number of compromises with its new line of small lenses. That said, I'm not leaving the SL system. I could try to rig up the SL to use TS lenses, but I'd rather sell off some extra Leica equipment and use it to buy into the Fuji system.

[tom0511]

Am 25.8.2024 um 22:14 schrieb John Smith:

What lenses were you using with the X2D? From what I've seen, Hasselblad has made quite a number of compromises with its new line of small lenses. That said, I'm not leaving the SL system. I could try to rig up the SL to use TS lenses, but I'd rather sell off some extra Leica equipment and use it to buy into the Fuji system.

I had 21,28,30,45,80,90 (old), and the 2 new V lenses. also 80/1.9 which I found the best rendering but also huge lens. The 30 is very good, I also liked the new lenses rendering. The 45 shows quite a bit of vignetting.

[o2mpx]

I don’t have the SL3 but in comparing the X2D to the SL2 (not apples2apples given HB primes with 16-35/24-90 Leica zooms), color tonality (albeit subjective) and to a lesser extent resolution detail, are both better from the X2D. Lens used with the X2D were 21/45p/35-75 zoom/135.

Other than the recently acquired 28p, don’t have experience with the newer V lenses; and have read the newer lenses aren’t equal nor better than the legacy XCD lenses. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 8/26/2024 at 5:25 AM, tom0511 said:

Here is my take as someone who has recently sold x2d, after using it side by side for quite some time with SL system.

X2d sensor I found ahead of the SL3, but not that far.

On the other side I find some Leica lenses ahead of Hassy, plus there is a better flexibility of the SL system, tele, zooms, faster lenses, AF-C, and much shorter black out when taking an image. SO for me it is the better all-round system, nearly as good IQ as medium format and nearly as flexible and fast as Canon/Nikon.

 

Good Summary. I'm keeping my X2D though. The camera is a joy to shoot. However on a recent trip I took both and didn't use the Hasselblad. Mostly the SL3 for zooms and the X2D for primes.

On 8/26/2024 at 6:14 AM, John Smith said:

What lenses were you using with the X2D? From what I've seen, Hasselblad has made quite a number of compromises with its new line of small lenses. That said, I'm not leaving the SL system. I could try to rig up the SL to use TS lenses, but I'd rather sell off some extra Leica equipment and use it to buy into the Fuji system.

All lenses have compromises and priorities. *Some* of the V lenses prioritise size weight and speed over wide open performance in the corners. But don't think for a second they're poor. Just different. The 55V gets a lot of heat but is my favourite of all the HB glass. 

21 minutes ago, o2mpx said:

I don’t have the SL3 but in comparing the X2D to the SL2 (not apples2apples given HB primes with 16-35/24-90 Leica zooms), color tonality (albeit subjective) and to a lesser extent resolution detail, are both better from the X2D. Lens used with the X2D were 21/45p/35-75 zoom/135.

Other than the recently acquired 28p, don’t have experience with the newer V lenses; and have read the newer lenses aren’t equal nor better than the legacy XCD lenses. 

The 90V is *slightly* better than the older one. The 25V has no *older* version. The 28 is a new pancake. The critcism of the 38 and 55 are depending on your perspective. In the SL line you have the 35 and 50 APO and non-APO. Think of the 38 and 55 as the *non-APO* versions of the XCD line up. Not as optically stellar wide open but smaller and faster. plus they get real good stopped down a bit.

Gordon

[Leica Filmmatic]

I have both the x2d and sl3, i just got the sl3 so i am enjoying shooting that more.  However the hassy has the best iq hands down.  I love them both but the sl3 allows more flexibility with its lens selections.  Both are art pieces that make art, if you can have both have both. 

[Mak67]

On 8/20/2024 at 8:39 PM, SrMi said:

In a recent test, I got better results using LPC with 24-70 than with TSE 24 shifted to max.

I've done long and boring testing of LPC vs TS lenses, results are a bit of a mix bag: 

For small-Medium shift  , then a very good lens @ f5'6/8 +Capture one is doing a fantastic job, and i got much much better result than with any TS lenses tested (canon TSE17,24,50 Nikon 19,45,85 Laowa 15,20) regarding CA, Distorsion and sharpness (keep in mind that most TS lenses need f11), from my point of view zoom lenses are the most efficient for this as you can adjust focal lenses as you loose framing .... 

For large shift, framing is where you'll lost most of your field of view, and then cropping the image can let you with medium file size, but if max resolution is not needed it can do a brillant job. But shooting by f 5,6-8 can be very tricky as your depth of filed will not be parrellele to your subject ... so many time you'll have to shoot by f11 and loose the sharpness effect of very good lenses at 5'6 ... but still CA is much better, Distorsion control is so much better.

 

At the end, today i shoot  95% of architecture with 14-24, 16-35, 35, 50, 24-90 and LPC ... TS lenses mostly keep dust in the bag.

 

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Mak67 said:

I've done long and boring testing of LPC vs TS lenses, results are a bit of a mix bag: 

For small-Medium shift  , then a very good lens @ f5'6/8 +Capture one is doing a fantastic job, and i got much much better result than with any TS lenses tested (canon TSE17,24,50 Nikon 19,45,85 Laowa 15,20) regarding CA, Distorsion and sharpness (keep in mind that most TS lenses need f11), from my point of view zoom lenses are the most efficient for this as you can adjust focal lenses as you loose framing .... 

For large shift, framing is where you'll lost most of your field of view, and then cropping the image can let you with medium file size, but if max resolution is not needed it can do a brillant job. But shooting by f 5,6-8 can be very tricky as your depth of filed will not be parrellele to your subject ... so many time you'll have to shoot by f11 and loose the sharpness effect of very good lenses at 5'6 ... but still CA is much better, Distorsion control is so much better.

 

At the end, today i shoot  95% of architecture with 14-24, 16-35, 35, 50, 24-90 and LPC ... TS lenses mostly keep dust in the bag.

 

Thank you for the report. An interesting detail of Adobe's LPC implementation is that the resolution is maintained after the corrections have been automatically applied. The quality of the enhanced image seems good to me.

[Leica Land]

One of the Major Plus point for me to chose Fujifilm GFX 100ii is that.

Now I can use all my S lens with full function on the GFX system

it bring a second life to by S lens

 

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Leica Land said:

One of the Major Plus point for me to chose Fujifilm GFX 100ii is that.

Now I can use all my S lens with full function on the GFX system

it bring a second life to by S lens

 

What is the "major plus point" that you are referring to? The discussions are not threaded, so it isn't easy to see what you refer to.

 

[hdmesa]

33 minutes ago, SrMi said:

What is the "major plus point" that you are referring to? The discussions are not threaded, so it isn't easy to see what you refer to.

A new adapter was announced that allows AF and EXIF communication with S lenses on the GFX.

https://kipon.com/product/leica-s-fuji-g-af/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

A new adapter was announced that allows AF and EXIF communication with S lenses on the GFX.

https://kipon.com/product/leica-s-fuji-g-af/

I see, but L mount had an S adapter with AF and EXIF communication for quite a while (we are comparing GFX with SL3?). I wonder how well Kipon works compared to the Leica adapter (infinity focus, central shutter?). It certainly should be less expensive ;-).