Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras
Thread started 06 Jan 2013 (Sunday) 14:29
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

STICKY: Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here

 
Osa713
Senior Member
Osa713's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
Houston, TX
Sep 18, 2017 21:11 |  #5461

AlanU wrote in post #18455233 (external link)
When I buy new lenses for Fuji I just blindly have faith that it's perfect :)

Im confused, you have given others advice to rent first, In this very thread.

Even so I cannot see the GFX surpassing sales that much since Medium format is quite a niche system in it's infancy.

Medium format in its infancy?

My responses are in red. :-)


Do not reply to spam, report it!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 18, 2017 21:20 |  #5462

Osa713 wrote in post #18455366 (external link)
My responses are in red. :-)


1)I know my lens focal lengths I need. I have faith the lenses will not back/front focus with mirrorless :)

2) First gen Fuji mirrorless Medium format body performance. It's just going to get much better in the mk2 or 3 version. I lost interest as I saw every lens will be a minimum of 2 grand + My sensibility came to me quickly LOL!!


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Sep 18, 2017 22:43 |  #5463

AlanU wrote in post #18455376 (external link)
1)I know my lens focal lengths I need. I have faith the lenses will not back/front focus with mirrorless :)

I don't think that is even possible since they do not use a mirror. You are seeing what the sensor sees so the focus is jus the focus.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 18, 2017 22:54 |  #5464

benji25 wrote in post #18455423 (external link)
I don't think that is even possible since they do not use a mirror. You are seeing what the sensor sees so the focus is jus the focus.

Yes..exactly......

That's my point that I do not worry about my fuji glass having focus issues. I only test my Canon lenses thoroughly :)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
benji25's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Twin Cities
Sep 18, 2017 22:57 |  #5465

AlanU wrote in post #18455432 (external link)
Yes..exactly......

That's my point that I do not worry about my fuji glass having focus issues. I only test my Canon lenses thoroughly :)

Oh I see. I thought you meant fuji were just good at making lenses so the didn't miss focus.


Websiteexternal link
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,758 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Sep 18, 2017 23:03 |  #5466

AlanU wrote in post #18455233 (external link)
What is the need for a Fuji medium format then? They are in the arena with big companies playing the mega pixel race and medium format performance.

I'm not a pixel peeper. If you talked to me 10yrs ago I was extremely critical but now I am critical when I buy new lenses for my mirrored bodies. Once I deem a lens perfect I do not pixel peep. When I buy new lenses for Fuji I just blindly have faith that it's perfect :)

I wonder if the only Fuji users buying medium format needs them for billboards. Otherwise I do not fully understand why Fuji jumped in if the current system fully meets all of the requirements?? There are Stock photo photographers using full frame and I guess crop sensors too. I'm just curious to see sales numbers for the new Fuji medium format camera. I guess it's a budget medium format camera for serious studios that do not want to spend PhaseOne or Hassie sticker prices. Even so I cannot see the GFX surpassing sales that much since Medium format is quite a niche system in it's infancy.

I just know many like the fuji render. The world is interesting as very few print. So far viewing alot of fuji forums and websites I see maybe 90-95%?????? artistic nature not heavily weighted for events photographers. Perhaps the entire draw to fuji is this type of photography is more specific?

Again a camera is just a tool for specific needs for individuals application. Many applications in the world of photography.

Billboard prints are usually not a high resolution... this is why there's all those annoying iPhone camera adds everywhere these days with captions like "Shot on the iPhoneX" (just realized I can't use "X" as a stand in anymore since that's actually a thing now). I always roll my eyes and go, "Yeah, in a studio and then professionally edited in photoshop".

It baffles me that you have a hard time wrapping your head around the desires for MF while pushing the need of FF on pretty much everyone from what I've seen. The difference between FF and MF is far larger than that of APS-C and FF... so where are you lost?

A lot of people who post on forums don't post their professional work in a casual setting... I rarely do on this very forum, doesn't mean I haven't been using them for events. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've seen you post any of your event shots on this page either, other than the car meet stuff which I got the impression you weren't contracted to do. My point is, that's hardly evidence that there aren't as many people professionally using Fuji, several people just in this conversation are.

I agree with your last sentence, which furthers my confusion on how you don't see a market for Fuji's GFX system.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18455234 (external link)
Well the pixel size is on the GFX is twice that of the D850, twice.

The D850's pixel sites are less then 1/4 bigger than the X-T2's. So there's that. Then you do get the fall off of colours and tone - nothing quite like it, it's just so gentle. But really is you take it that the difference between APS-C and FF is negligible, and if you take it that the difference between FF and MF-c is also negligible, the difference between APS-C and MF-c is much larger. Go shoot a Phase1 XF100Mp all you see a big difference, at home, OMG the detail and dynamic range of that sensor compared to any FF camera. MAAAAAAAaaaaaa...

Sorry lost the run of myself there, you get a couple of points of extra dynamic range from the GFX over the D850, the 24Mp X-trans has about the same range as the D850, not quite but it's really close.

Go borrow one and shoot if for a week, properly, and see if you don't want one afterwards, then you'll know.

I know I said this before but little of what I shoot is at 12800, most is well below that so I, for one, don't need a camera that shoots much above that. Lucky me :)

Fujifilm's entire camera division [Including their broadcast lens] only makes up 4% of the revenue of the company so I doubt they'd ever make a FF mirrorless now that the GFX is out, especially when you consider their views on FF.


EDIT: I forgot the biggest benefit of shooting Medium Format over Full Frame, telling others on the internet that their camera is not professional as it's sensor is too small. Oh the looks...

This.

AlanU wrote in post #18455262 (external link)
Kim,

I've only played with a digital PhaseOne. Scary how many pixels you can play with. I haven't bothered my friend much lately as he works for a large company that basically has rentals and sales mainly for professionals.

I can see that pixel density plays a big role in medium format. I still do not see the need for majority of photographers needing medium format for the price they charge locally anyways. I'm trying to speak in sensible terms for working professionals that do not charge large like ANNIE LEIBOVITZ for the Royal family. Even high profile portrait photographers like Sue Bryce uses Canon full frames for her portrait work. Her kit doesn't even comprise of high res Canon bodies.

I would think Landscape/cityscape photogs love dynamic range as well as events photographers accidentally messing up exposure when the document events. Portrait photographers have much more control over light using scrims both indoor and outdoors and have more control over manipulating light.

A regular fuji shooter should not be envious of the Fuji medium format. An affordable approach to me would be going high res camera's from Canon or Nikon full frames for affordable gear that has alot of pixels to play with plus excellent dynamic range.

Odd how a while back Fuji shooters said 16MP was a manageable amount of pixels even for relatively larger print. The 24MP came out and fuji shooters got alot more confidence in larger print. A very costly approach for more pixels Fuji wants loyal users to buy a GFX medium format body I guess. My sensible brain thinks that is quite a bold jump in $$$$

I'm very happy with 24MP fuji crop sensor. I think the next wave of Fuji sensors they will jam higher MP in their crop sensor since they are not going to enter the full frame realm.

Off topic. I just recently taken some photos of a yoga studio for website, print and social media. I used my X-t2 with 10-24mm and 16mm. In those situations I would typically use my Canon gear. I was very pleased with my Fuji performance but even during Lightroom editing I know that my 5d4 is substantially cleaner in all of the images using available light. High iso the X-t2 did well but I do bite my tongue in loss of detail but with pleasant noise.

Here's the thing..........

In reality on a webpage presentation or print the fuji files look killer. My Canon satisfies my mind and it would look equally as killer. My point is my personal preference in cleaner files does get the best of me sometimes "ideally" speaking. Realistically speaking depending on presentation you can get away with the noise. I do notice when a photog wants to present an image but gets distracted noise they convert the file to black and white...(savior). So many ways to skin a cat when it comes to photography.

Man I just cannot justify spending on a Fuji GFX $9100 CDN (body only, incl tax) for the price I charge for a photo session or portrait session LOL!!! I can almost buy 2 x Canon 5dmk4 for that money.

Since when is MF's main attraction the higher resolution? My attraction for it is the amount of compression you get from the lenses. To me there's barely a perceivable difference in most shots between MF and APS-C (which makes sense given that it's only about a stop worth of DOF difference), but going to MF, the results are usually (not always) obvious.

Share those pics or it didn't happen... you said it yourself, people don't shoot professionally with Fuji ;)

AlanU wrote in post #18455269 (external link)
If your ever concerned with full creative control you'll never ever go wrong with a constant aperture zoom.

I regret selling my 18-55 but ultimately if I want to increase my versatility of my Fuji gear I'll "need" to buy a 16-55.

If you want to get into analysis just understand that your previous 5d3 with 24-70Lf/2.8mkii will have different bokeh and "3d pop" than a Fuji with 16-55. This is no different using a Canon 80D with canon 17-55 f/2.8 vs any Full frame with 24-70 f/2.8 equivalence. The 80D shooting wide open will be like your previous 5dmk3 shooting a 24-70mkii @ f/4 instead of f/2.8. You loose some of the 3d "pop" with the 80D shooting wideopen with a fast f/2.8 zoom.

This is just my observation while shooting events. If your a prime shooter we can totally "NOT" miss shallow dof to a certain extent with fuji sensor.

IDK, I'm one of those of the opinion that the lens rendering has far more to do with "3D pop" than DOF does. I've had (and still have) F4 lenses that make images pop way more than other lenses of similar FL's that are 2 stops faster (and this was with my FF a7S even).

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18455300 (external link)
You'll loose one stop of DOF over FF. That's it. Nothing about 3D-POPing out your subject as far as I understand it anyway. Why not borrow/rent one for a few days & find out.

This... you're on a roll dude :lol:

Osa713 wrote in post #18455359 (external link)
This was beautiful, I shed a tear on my keyboard.

I actually loled :lol:

AlanU wrote in post #18455376 (external link)
1)I know my lens focal lengths I need. I have faith the lenses will not back/front focus with mirrorless :)

2) First gen Fuji mirrorless Medium format body performance. It's just going to get much better in the mk2 or 3 version. I lost interest as I saw every lens will be a minimum of 2 grand + My sensibility came to me quickly LOL!!

Point us to a cheaper modern digital MF option... we'll wait ;)


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 19, 2017 03:45 |  #5467

Everyday,

With all this excitement over the yearning over the Fuji GFX Medium format camera there are few on the POTN that own one. I see many loyal fuji users (including myself) failing to keeping up with the Joneses in this overly extravagant expensive medium format. GFX is certainly a nice to have but without a doubt for many not need to have for enjoyment of photography or to put food on the table as a pro.

When will you be buying a GFX for niche portrait/landscape application with little daily use :) ? Even though Fuji is making digital medium format cheaper I doubt you or many other POTN members will be buying one. The average photographer will not be running out to buy one. I think the Nikon guys are gleaming in having a ridiculously high performance body that would have an all in one package of crazy high performance ISO, 7-9 fps, excellent dynamic range and almost 46MP to play with. All of this with a big bag of compatible lenses to boot. Please note I'm a Canon shooter saying this.....

One of the strongest arguments (discussion) regarding Fuji mirrrorless is the tiny form factor and light weight. Mirrored bodies like the Nikon D5, D810, D850 or Canon 1DXmk2 or 5dmk4 bodies is too heavy and clunky even though AF and high iso performance is extraordinary in extremely low light and portrait capable  ??????? Suddenly people on the forums are saying they want a large body GFX with massive glass on the end of it??? Man you have to do a lot of budget portrait jobs or your either a high profile pro charging large amounts due to your reputation.

The MF compression of an image is certainly unique but then you'll always hear the discussion of why blow out the background bokeh to cream. People seem to make a statement of more dof for story telling so aps-c is more than enough. I think the current 56mm and 90mm can provide a decent amount of creamy bokeh. Another interesting discussion is our Fuji f/1.2 and f/1.4 (and 90mm f/2) seem to have more magic/3d pop than the new gen faster focusing f/2 primes. However now people say there isn't much difference in a full frame sensor shooting f/1.2 and f/1.4???

You can see that it's easy to go overboard on talking/wanting a digital MF but I doubt many here will buy one simply due to niche application and cost for the average consumer. If anything many Professional photographers would wear out there current less capable older model camera bodies due to sustaining a profitable business plan. "image is good enough for my clients" attitude.
It's the ones like hobbyist/weekend warrior semi pros like myself that have the deeper pockets in disposable income in most cases (fact) to buy the latest and greatest. Hobbyists do not follow a business plan for profit. Have a chat with your favourite camera shop and they'll tell you the same.

Another discussion would be to obtain adequate aperture for dof and have proper shutter speeds while ramping up higher iso to properly execute a large group shot indoors. In low light the Medium format sensor would require more light and use of higher ISO for proper exposure to obtain enough dof vs an ap-c crop sensor. Shooting available light a crop sensor might be able to use f/5.6 for a deep 3 row group shot while the medium format would probably require a smaller aperture of f/8 - f/11 needing higher iso for adequate shutter speed......or if a strobe is concerned more juice!!!

There's a lot to consider with a physically larger sensor. You often never hearing this discussion in all of the excitement of digital MF ownership. Again it's a niche product.

Lucas "I've had (and still have) F4 lenses that make images pop way more than other lenses of similar FL's that are 2 stops faster (and this was with my FF a7S even)." I think that is theoretically impossible if your shooting identical camera make/subject distances SOOC. Perhaps you can aid in "pop" with post processing techniques??

If you had a folder of images taken with an 24-70mm f/4 zoom vs an 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom it is absolutely apparent which was the f/2.8 images while using the same sensor size and similar subject matter (run/gun event).

Most here will still be shooting their regular fuji aps-c sensor bodies. The average wallet is the limiting factor especially for a niche product. Reality sets in for me and the acquisition of a Fuji GFX will not make more money than regular camera gear. For maybe a small percentage of high profile pro's it's a beneficial upgrade.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Ireland
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Two Hot Shoes.
Sep 19, 2017 05:18 as a reply to AlanU's post |  #5468

There are a lot of lenses that were made for Full frame cameras that throw an image to cover the GFX's sensor, just. So if you did want a tiny DOF you can use one of these. Otus 85mm f/1.4 would be nice, the 135L f/2 Canon would also be nice but the 200/2 would be really nice.

Thing about group shots is you can always back up a few feet to deepen you field of focus, you don't have to reduce you aperture. Thats why learning your relative DOF and distances for your lenses is paramount at times like this. Or you could just use an app till you get use to it.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,089 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 19, 2017 06:04 |  #5469

X-T20 w/ 35 1.4

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
F2Bthere
Senior Member
F2Bthere's Avatar
704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Post has been edited 1 month ago by F2Bthere.
Sep 19, 2017 09:25 |  #5470

AlanU wrote in post #18455537 (external link)
Everyday,

With all this excitement over the yearning over the Fuji GFX Medium format camera there are few on the POTN that own one. I see many loyal fuji users (including myself) failing to keeping up with the Joneses in this overly extravagant expensive medium format. GFX is certainly a nice to have but without a doubt for many not need to have for enjoyment of photography or to put food on the table as a pro.

When will you be buying a GFX for niche portrait/landscape application with little daily use :) ? Even though Fuji is making digital medium format cheaper I doubt you or many other POTN members will be buying one. The average photographer will not be running out to buy one. I think the Nikon guys are gleaming in having a ridiculously high performance body that would have an all in one package of crazy high performance ISO, 7-9 fps, excellent dynamic range and almost 46MP to play with. All of this with a big bag of compatible lenses to boot. Please note I'm a Canon shooter saying this.....

One of the strongest arguments (discussion) regarding Fuji mirrrorless is the tiny form factor and light weight. Mirrored bodies like the Nikon D5, D810, D850 or Canon 1DXmk2 or 5dmk4 bodies is too heavy and clunky even though AF and high iso performance is extraordinary in extremely low light and portrait capable  ??????? Suddenly people on the forums are saying they want a large body GFX with massive glass on the end of it??? Man you have to do a lot of budget portrait jobs or your either a high profile pro charging large amounts due to your reputation.

The MF compression of an image is certainly unique but then you'll always hear the discussion of why blow out the background bokeh to cream. People seem to make a statement of more dof for story telling so aps-c is more than enough. I think the current 56mm and 90mm can provide a decent amount of creamy bokeh. Another interesting discussion is our Fuji f/1.2 and f/1.4 (and 90mm f/2) seem to have more magic/3d pop than the new gen faster focusing f/2 primes. However now people say there isn't much difference in a full frame sensor shooting f/1.2 and f/1.4???

You can see that it's easy to go overboard on talking/wanting a digital MF but I doubt many here will buy one simply due to niche application and cost for the average consumer. If anything many Professional photographers would wear out there current less capable older model camera bodies due to sustaining a profitable business plan. "image is good enough for my clients" attitude.
It's the ones like hobbyist/weekend warrior semi pros like myself that have the deeper pockets in disposable income in most cases (fact) to buy the latest and greatest. Hobbyists do not follow a business plan for profit. Have a chat with your favourite camera shop and they'll tell you the same.

Another discussion would be to obtain adequate aperture for dof and have proper shutter speeds while ramping up higher iso to properly execute a large group shot indoors. In low light the Medium format sensor would require more light and use of higher ISO for proper exposure to obtain enough dof vs an ap-c crop sensor. Shooting available light a crop sensor might be able to use f/5.6 for a deep 3 row group shot while the medium format would probably require a smaller aperture of f/8 - f/11 needing higher iso for adequate shutter speed......or if a strobe is concerned more juice!!!

There's a lot to consider with a physically larger sensor. You often never hearing this discussion in all of the excitement of digital MF ownership. Again it's a niche product.

Lucas "I've had (and still have) F4 lenses that make images pop way more than other lenses of similar FL's that are 2 stops faster (and this was with my FF a7S even)." I think that is theoretically impossible if your shooting identical camera make/subject distances SOOC. Perhaps you can aid in "pop" with post processing techniques??

If you had a folder of images taken with an 24-70mm f/4 zoom vs an 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom it is absolutely apparent which was the f/2.8 images while using the same sensor size and similar subject matter (run/gun event).

Most here will still be shooting their regular fuji aps-c sensor bodies. The average wallet is the limiting factor especially for a niche product. Reality sets in for me and the acquisition of a Fuji GFX will not make more money than regular camera gear. For maybe a small percentage of high profile pro's it's a beneficial upgrade.

Very well reasoned arguments.

Not everyone will agree with your basic assumptions and not everyone making camera buying decisions makes "reasonable" decisions. This isn't to take away from your well-considered post. Rather, it is to say not all will make decisions this way and this will lead to more sales for Fuji.

This is good news for Fuji and is, in my opinion, good news for all of us.

To start, I suggest we look at how people buy cars. How many people really need four-wheel drive vehicles in most locations in the US where we see them? I have lived in New Mexico, where it might have helped if I had it, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who own four-wheel drive vehicles don't live on ranches or in areas where road or weather conditions require it. They cost a lot more to buy and run. But people spend the money because they want them. Who needs a performance sports car? Or a luxury car? So, there will be those with the means to buy the camera and the desire. Good for them. I see nothing wrong with people purchasing something as a luxury item if it is within their means. Heck, how many of the people buying high-end basketball shoes even play?

Second, for professionals, there will be a place. Some will buy it merely because their client will see it as a reason to hire them. I realize this sounds crazy, but I have seen this work both in commercial and retail contexts. For example, wedding photographers, even back in the film days, used having MF film cameras to persuade their clients that they could deliver an image quality superior to competitors and Uncle Bobs using 35mm film. And they were correct about it, even if a client wouldn't be able to tell with album-sized prints. And I know commercial clients absolutely do get persuaded certain equipment is better (and sometimes even specify gear to be used!).

And, for certain tasks, the GFX will achieve actual benefits which will provide better results. If you are printing large, it absolutely will matter. I don't mean billboards, which are viewed at a distance. But huge prints in corporate lobbies or client homes will fare better from the GFX in the hands of a photographer with equal skills. And the GFX files will stand up to high-end retouching as is done for fashion magazines better and give the retoucher more flexibility to get the most out of the image. And the same translates to high-end product photography for advertising.

How do you think Phase One not only survives but actually thrives? They are one of the more profitable camera companies and keep doing better. And their gear is an order of magnitude more expensive--they really are not a Fuji direct competitor for this reason.

So, in my opinion, there are valid reasons for a commercial or retail professional photographer to buy if they have discerning clients who have an actual or perceived need for the higher quality available. There are valid reasons for amateur photographers if they want the best quality and can afford it (most cameras are sold to exactly this group--professionals purchase a small fraction of the professional gear which is sold). And if they are landscape photographers, they payoff will be obvious. There are plenty of people who spend money to have a bigger, better or more luxurious camera/car/clothing/wh​atever because they can. And there is no shortage of people who make completely irrational buying decisions.

And I think this is good news for all of us. Innovation is funded and photographic equipment continues to get phenomenally better and cheaper for a given level of performance. And great, innovative companies like Fuji are rewarded for their bold efforts to create better cameras.

This is a good thing.


https://www.instagram.​com/storyinpictures_co​m/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
EverydayGetaway's Avatar
9,758 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Oct 2012
Bowie, MD
Sep 19, 2017 12:05 |  #5471

AlanU wrote in post #18455537 (external link)
Everyday,

1) With all this excitement over the yearning over the Fuji GFX Medium format camera there are few on the POTN that own one. I see many loyal fuji users (including myself) failing to keeping up with the Joneses in this overly extravagant expensive medium format. GFX is certainly a nice to have but without a doubt for many not need to have for enjoyment of photography or to put food on the table as a pro.

2) When will you be buying a GFX for niche portrait/landscape application with little daily use :) ? Even though Fuji is making digital medium format cheaper I doubt you or many other POTN members will be buying one. The average photographer will not be running out to buy one. I think the Nikon guys are gleaming in having a ridiculously high performance body that would have an all in one package of crazy high performance ISO, 7-9 fps, excellent dynamic range and almost 46MP to play with. All of this with a big bag of compatible lenses to boot. Please note I'm a Canon shooter saying this.....

3) One of the strongest arguments (discussion) regarding Fuji mirrrorless is the tiny form factor and light weight. Mirrored bodies like the Nikon D5, D810, D850 or Canon 1DXmk2 or 5dmk4 bodies is too heavy and clunky even though AF and high iso performance is extraordinary in extremely low light and portrait capable  ??????? Suddenly people on the forums are saying they want a large body GFX with massive glass on the end of it??? Man you have to do a lot of budget portrait jobs or your either a high profile pro charging large amounts due to your reputation.

4) The MF compression of an image is certainly unique but then you'll always hear the discussion of why blow out the background bokeh to cream. People seem to make a statement of more dof for story telling so aps-c is more than enough. I think the current 56mm and 90mm can provide a decent amount of creamy bokeh. Another interesting discussion is our Fuji f/1.2 and f/1.4 (and 90mm f/2) seem to have more magic/3d pop than the new gen faster focusing f/2 primes. However now people say there isn't much difference in a full frame sensor shooting f/1.2 and f/1.4???

5) You can see that it's easy to go overboard on talking/wanting a digital MF but I doubt many here will buy one simply due to niche application and cost for the average consumer. If anything many Professional photographers would wear out there current less capable older model camera bodies due to sustaining a profitable business plan. "image is good enough for my clients" attitude.
It's the ones like hobbyist/weekend warrior semi pros like myself that have the deeper pockets in disposable income in most cases (fact) to buy the latest and greatest. Hobbyists do not follow a business plan for profit. Have a chat with your favourite camera shop and they'll tell you the same.

6) Another discussion would be to obtain adequate aperture for dof and have proper shutter speeds while ramping up higher iso to properly execute a large group shot indoors. In low light the Medium format sensor would require more light and use of higher ISO for proper exposure to obtain enough dof vs an ap-c crop sensor. Shooting available light a crop sensor might be able to use f/5.6 for a deep 3 row group shot while the medium format would probably require a smaller aperture of f/8 - f/11 needing higher iso for adequate shutter speed......or if a strobe is concerned more juice!!!

There's a lot to consider with a physically larger sensor. You often never hearing this discussion in all of the excitement of digital MF ownership. Again it's a niche product.

7) Lucas "I've had (and still have) F4 lenses that make images pop way more than other lenses of similar FL's that are 2 stops faster (and this was with my FF a7S even)." I think that is theoretically impossible if your shooting identical camera make/subject distances SOOC. Perhaps you can aid in "pop" with post processing techniques??

8) If you had a folder of images taken with an 24-70mm f/4 zoom vs an 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom it is absolutely apparent which was the f/2.8 images while using the same sensor size and similar subject matter (run/gun event).

9) Most here will still be shooting their regular fuji aps-c sensor bodies. The average wallet is the limiting factor especially for a niche product. Reality sets in for me and the acquisition of a Fuji GFX will not make more money than regular camera gear. For maybe a small percentage of high profile pro's it's a beneficial upgrade.

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.

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.colesclass​room.com ...ression-whats-difference/ (external link)

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)?

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.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 19, 2017 15:11 |  #5472

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18455819 (external link)
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.colesclass​room.com ...ression-whats-difference/ (external link)

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!






5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Talley's Avatar
10,089 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Joined Dec 2011
Houston
Sep 19, 2017 22:30 as a reply to AlanU's post |  #5473

longest posts ever

not gonna lie... i didn't read any of it. I was hoping to find links to cheap fuji gear. what a disappointment.


5D4 |12mm 2.8 FE | 16-35L 2.8 III | Σ 35A | Σ 50A | Σ 85A | 200 F2 IS | 1.4xIII
X-T20 | X-E3 | 18/2 | 35/1.4 | 56/1.2 | 18-135
My Gear Archive

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Sep 19, 2017 22:39 |  #5474

:-P


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
Joined Feb 2008
Vancouver, BC
Sep 19, 2017 22:58 |  #5475

Talley wrote in post #18456249 (external link)
longest posts ever

not gonna lie... i didn't read any of it. I was hoping to find links to cheap fuji gear. what a disappointment.

c'mon Talley you have deep pockets.......just buy it new from B&H or Adorama ;)


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 80D | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | 100L | EF-S 10-22 | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 10-24 f/4.0 | 55-200 | EF-X500

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

627,315 views & 2325 likes for this thread
Fuji Users Unite - Post your comments, questions and images here
FORUMS Other Digital Cameras Fuji Digital Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00714 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is ozhaggis
814 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016