EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18455819
I'm going to try something different for this response... instead of just responding in bold within your quote, I'll go back and number each point in your quote and then number my responses below to match.
1) And? I don't get your point. Who's made the argument that everyone in here wants to dive into the GFX? I would love to have one for those few times I'd love to play with the look they give, but I'm certainly not going to spend 10 grand on one, but can still quite easily understand why someone would.
2) I won't be... again, when did I say I would? What does a Nikon have to do with anything? I see/saw just as many Fuji guys excited about the X-T2 as I did/do about Nikon guys for the D850.The mention of Nikon is to talk about having the choice of shooting mRAW (smaller file) or full size RAW to get approx 46MP files with insane performance capabilities. Our Fuji 24MP sensor and bodies is not at the same level to the D850. That was my point in comparison. The average photographer would be thrilled to have the resolution of a full frame nikon sensor while having incredible AF in low light, tracking capabilities and extremely clean high iso images not to mention Eshutter!!
3) Again, the difference between APS-C and FF is very marginal compared to the difference between FF and MF. The GFX is about the same size and weight as your average FF DSLR, so of course it becomes an enticing option when instead of a relatively marginal difference in IQ for the extra bulk, you have a large step up in IQ (I'll add, still not enough that I'd use one for most of my shoots).
4) We're not talking about DOF here... we're talking about compression. Compression isn't just about blowing out a background, it's about making it look more distant, separating it from your subject. Compression and DOF are not the same thing. The difference in compression from APS-C to MF is very apparent, it's clearly apparent even from FF to MF. Far less so from APS-C to FF. https://www.colesclassroom.com ...ression-whats-difference/
And no, there really isn't much difference between f1.2 and f1.4 in any format... it's 1/2 of a stop... clearly Canon even agrees given the new 85mm L is going to be an f1.4. The difference between f1.2 and f2 is a stop and half... add to that that 56mm is a longer lens than any of the newer f2 primes (more compression) it's really no wonder that they render more stand out portraits.
5) That entirely depends on the photographer's needs (like anything else). A fully studio photographer who's putting out large fine art prints would obviously have more interest in a MF camera than someone who's shooting sports or run and gun events. Blanketing all "pros" (or any other photographers for that matter) into one category is just silly to me.
6) I don't know of a whole lot of MF shooters who are frequently shooting large group shots... but OK, I'll entertain your example. This scenario isn't any different than when using any other system, or when comparing FF to APS-C for the same type of shot. You have several ways to solve this; shoot a wider lens, use more lights or ramp up your ISO. How is that any different from people arguing FF vs APS-C (as you frequently do)?I don't think you've ever analyzed this real situation. Great care must be taken to analyze appropriate aperture to assure no one is blurry in a group shot. So if per say your a Micro 4/3 shooter you can have a wider aperture (less flash power required too) getting plenty of dof to cover a group shot. The MF system you'll need to tighten the aperture a lot more to obtain similar dof for the exact same group shot.
7) Again, "3D pop" isn't solely a byproduct of DOF. It's a character trait of lenses caused by a number of factors; focal length, micro contrast (most would argue this is the biggest component), sharpness, clarity... all of this matters. Of course you can "add in pop" via localized sharpening, contrast and tone curves, but that's not what we're talking about here.
8) It may well be apparent, sure, that doesn't mean images from one or the other will have more or less "pop" due to their aperture. I'd be willing to bet that my Minolta 35-70/3.5 has more "3D pop" than most modern faster zooms. Again, "3D pop" is not a product solely from DOF.
9) Right, and many would make the same exact argument against FF. The simple fact of the matter is that APS-C is pretty much as near as makes no difference to FF for most users, but APS-C (or FF) compared to MF, there's a clear difference for most users.Yes I agree many photographers can be pleased with the beautiful fuji crop sensor files vs full frame. Take a gander at Fred Miranda and you'll will discover sensor size is not the only reasons for system selection. There are Fuji photogs loving their system but you can see the differentiation of photogs specifically using their primary mirrored full frame systems for low light AF accuracy, better high iso performance than aps-c for hired events. For some having a clean 12800 ISO, good usable 25600 ISO file is effortless with a mirrored system like the D810/D850, 1DXmk2/5dmk4 so it's difficult to say there is little difference between aps-c to full frame. I appreciate this capability......
MF systems are in a different level of photography. Seems like the photographers know exactly what they need to do with that system. Very specific application focused in their art/work with little to no discussion of the cost of their gear or bragging rights.
Leica shooters are some what of a niche category too. They appreciate the extremely unique render and the luxury of raw pure photographic tools.
Blanket statement warning LOL : The average photographer will use whatever tools seems fit in their budget. The average photographer probably will not be buying a Fujifilm GFX or latest Leica camera system. A professional (or fortunate $$ hobbyist) with specific needs to their photography will seek niche gear. I'm just the group where I use FF and crop sensor in my tool kit.
I will always be a mirrored body user and mirrorless shooter. Different tools for different needs for my personal preference.
I just see a lot of talk regarding the Fuji MF camera but if you analyze a high percentage of photos from Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji forums etc alot of the photos do not require a Medium format 12-15K minimal/basic system for the average shooter. I really admire the hardcore users requiring that kind of system. A high percentage of dedicated full time pro's sacrifice a lot already with extremely competitive tough market and would stretch or kill their equipment budget for a MF system. Many probably would like to have but not need to have as I mentioned before.....
When I think of fuji aps-c bodies I think fun and enjoyable experience. Also knowing your gears limitations when your shooting hired events. BUT when I think of Fujifilm GFX I think serious IQ demands and meeting deadlines for serious work. That's perhaps narrow minded but just my mindset ......
No big deal.....use the tools that you have and maximize what you can do with it.
No stress...shoot and have fun!