Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

mystik610 wrote in post #18809919
Totally. I just think the system is too immature and there are too many limitations straight out the gate.

I'm speaking as someone who was an early adopter to the a7r. The difference is that the a7r was $2k, not $6k

I'm curious to understand what it is you're qualifying as immature. For a medium format, specs and reviews wise, my impression is that the GFX is pretty damn mature in its category. If you're running a comparison across all different formats and count in all technical features and specs, then I can understand that the GFX can't tick boxes that some other cameras can. But I'm not sure that's the proper way of benchmarking.

That said, I'd love to get the GFX. But at 5-7k (depending on the lens) I can't justify it. And I couldn't justify it even if the specs were better. For myself, I'm really just looking for dynamic range and that Fuji-style rendering.

An edit from a rainy day last month.

Photo from navydoc's gallery.

the 42mp is slowing me down editing for my real-estate gig, my crazy brain is now telling me to sell the Riii and buy the A7III. What do you think of the idea?

That's a no-brainer for me. Especially since you won't be cropping the images down any.

OoDee wrote in post #18810159
I'm curious to understand what it is you're qualifying as immature. For a medium format, specs and reviews wise, my impression is that the GFX is pretty damn mature in its category. If you're running a comparison across all different formats and count in all technical features and specs, then I can understand that the GFX can't tick boxes that some other cameras can. But I'm not sure that's the proper way of benchmarking.

That said, I'd love to get the GFX. But at 5-7k (depending on the lens) I can't justify it. And I couldn't justify it even if the specs were better. For myself, I'm really just looking for dynamic range and that Fuji-style rendering.

The system has like 4-5 lenses, contrast detect AF and transitioning to PDAF.

Due to aspect ratio and size of the sensor, it can adapt some 35mm lenses, which is very cool.

I understand that most folks using MF don't have much use for AF but it doesn't have to be that way. It's a new system, it's hardly mature.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18810202
the 42mp is slowing me down editing for my real-estate gig, my crazy brain is now telling me to sell the Riii and buy the A7III. What do you think of the idea?

Build a better PC and keep the megapixels

OoDee wrote in post #18810159
I'm curious to understand what it is you're qualifying as immature. For a medium format, specs and reviews wise, my impression is that the GFX is pretty damn mature in its category. If you're running a comparison across all different formats and count in all technical features and specs, then I can understand that the GFX can't tick boxes that some other cameras can. But I'm not sure that's the proper way of benchmarking.

That said, I'd love to get the GFX. But at 5-7k (depending on the lens) I can't justify it. And I couldn't justify it even if the specs were better. For myself, I'm really just looking for dynamic range and that Fuji-style rendering.

CDAF only, no IBIS, limited lens selection (no glass fast enough to match the equivalent DOF of E-mount fast aperture glass.), limited burst rates. Overall, if I'm going to spend $6k on a body, it better be something that has a lot of utility, and right now, the GFX would be a special purpose body. A lot of the limitations of the GFX are things that involve the ability to get the shot, and all the IQ in the world doesn't matter if you can't get the shot.

Plus when you look at the IQ comparisons between the likes of the a7rIII and the GFX, the benefits of the GFX basically manifest themselves in above normal extremes. ...4-stop DR pushes, or pixel peeping at 100%. The IQ trade-offs are pretty immaterial IMO, and definitely not worth the trade-off in things like AF. At high ISO, the a7rIII actually outperforms the GFX, likely because the a7rIII has a smaller, but more sophisticated sensor.

I do think that the GFX will reach a maturity point eventually, but unless you want to blow a lot of money on GAS upgrade hell at $6k a generation, I'd wait until the system hits a maturity point. Basically, I wouldn't touch the GFX until they reach the point of maturity that the a7 bodies hit at MKIII.

vinmunoz wrote in post #18810202
the 42mp is slowing me down editing for my real-estate gig, my crazy brain is now telling me to sell the Riii and buy the A7III. What do you think of the idea?

two bodies...two bodies...two bodies...anyone shooting paid work that is not showing up with at least two bodies is not taking it seriously...the A73 would be fine for RE...plenty of resolution and DR. But to show up with only one is taking chances with your reputation. And it does happen...I had a shoot last fall that the r2 wasn't cooperating, it didn't want to focus...so grabbed the a9 and rocked on...had I only had one body...I would have been hosed. AS it was...client never knew it.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18810217
Build a better PC and keep the megapixels

and then there is this...

The GFX is pretty mature in terms of medium format, but when you compare it to a modern 135mm body it has slow AF and fps etc...
Not everybody wants or needs a camera that you can pretend you are in the middle of a dusty street at noon, waiting for someone to say 'draw'
There are currently 7 native lenses available with another three in development, as as mentioned a lot of 135mm lenses will cover the 44x33 sensor. €3464 + tax in my local shop to start shooting medium format. There is great value in that for a lot of photographers, like the ones that don't like to shoot in the dark or quick draw competitions...

The GFX 100s will have IBIS and 100% PDAF coverage as well as 4K30 4:2:2 10 Bit video. But that will cost about twice as much as the 50r does, but for those who need it, there you go, for those who don't but still want that IQ can stay with the affordable 50r. I guess it depends on what & how you want to shoot.

digital_AM wrote in post #18810000
Needed a break from editing landscape images from DV so I finished this cityscape shot tonight.

Loxia 85


[

IMAGE LINK: https://www.alfredomor​aphoto.com …oads/n-KGp2Jw/i-S8bPmKG/A

Ahh I love that Hyatt and Condo building. My buddy still owns a few units in there.

Nice shot Im going to send it to him

Gene thanks. I checked. I'm already 1809...I guess I'm in an auto-update mode.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18810235
The GFX is pretty mature in terms of medium format, but when you compare it to a modern 135mm body it has slow AF and fps etc...
Not everybody wants or needs a camera that you can pretend you are in the middle of a dusty street at noon, waiting for someone to say 'draw'
There are currently 7 native lenses available with another three in development, as as mentioned a lot of 135mm lenses will cover the 44x33 sensor. €3464 + tax in my local shop to start shooting medium format. There is great value in that for a lot of photographers, like the ones that don't like to shoot in the dark or quick draw competitions...

The GFX 100s will have IBIS and 100% PDAF coverage as well as 4K30 4:2:2 10 Bit video. But that will cost about twice as much as the 50r does, but for those who need it, there you go, for those who don't but still want that IQ can stay with the affordable 50r. I guess it depends on what & how you want to shoot.

Indeed, not everyone needs an AF machine, but like you said, the GFX 100s is showing that it will be the way of the future, and that the dust is yet to settle. On top of that, in terms of medium format, the system is moving along at the rate of 35mm rather than typical MF, it's making fairly quick progression(hence not really comparing to other MF fuji is breaking standards). Only a few years in and they've broke ground with ibis and pdaf, in two more years, pdaf might be standard on lower bodies. The outlay of cash is a bit more significant, but it's not what it was before, way out of reach. With the way fuji has been progressing on smaller bodies at a fairly quick rate, I'de say that the GFX's are not mature, but getting there very quickly.

navydoc wrote in post #18810193
An edit from a rainy day last month.

Gallery photo:
posted by navydoc originally in forum: Birds

Wonderful capture. The reason why I don't fool with the Ruby-throats here in the Summer....bland by comparison!!

vinmunoz wrote in post #18810202
the 42mp is slowing me down editing for my real-estate gig, my crazy brain is now telling me to sell the Riii and buy the A7III. What do you think of the idea?

I think 18mpx is enough for real estate...crop mode is a friend eh. Still have the 42 when you need it

mystik610 wrote in post #18810226
CDAF only, no IBIS, limited lens selection (no glass fast enough to match the equivalent DOF of E-mount fast aperture glass.), limited burst rates. Overall, if I'm going to spend $6k on a body, it better be something that has a lot of utility, and right now, the GFX would be a special purpose body. A lot of the limitations of the GFX are things that involve the ability to get the shot, and all the IQ in the world doesn't matter if you can't get the shot.

Plus when you look at the IQ comparisons between the likes of the a7rIII and the GFX, the benefits of the GFX basically manifest themselves in above normal extremes. ...4-stop DR pushes, or pixel peeping at 100%. The IQ trade-offs are pretty immaterial IMO, and definitely not worth the trade-off in things like AF. At high ISO, the a7rIII actually outperforms the GFX, likely because the a7rIII has a smaller, but more sophisticated sensor.

I do think that the GFX will reach a maturity point eventually, but unless you want to blow a lot of money on GAS upgrade hell at $6k a generation, I'd wait until the system hits a maturity point. Basically, I wouldn't touch the GFX until they reach the point of maturity that the a7 bodies hit at MKIII.

So you're benchmarking against the entire DSLR/mirrorless market rather than the MF category specifically. That's what I wanted to understand. And in that case I can second your argument on immaturity. But to my knowledge, that goes for every single MF manufacturer in the market. Against its MF peers, GFX appears to be plenty capable and certainly not immature.

I'm also with you on the IQ. From what I've seen and tested (though only in very limited amounts) the difference between even the Ar7ii and the GFX is minor.

But as far rest of the feature set and specs go, I find limited value in a lot of the other things. I do put value on AF quality, but it's not huge. IBIS, quite frankly, is indifferent to me. I've never found myself in a situation where I though IBIS made a difference. My use of lenses is limited to rather few primes, though I've been flirting with the idea of going back to kit zooms. And high burst rates were never something I needed. Granted, I don't shoot sports.

So if I'm over simplifying it a little bit, for me it's all about the IQ in relation to price point. Technologically everything else is already "good enough" in the current days' camera market. And since we're talking about only minor improvements in IQ when going from roughly 2k (A7III) to 6k (GFX) in price, there's no way I can justify it for myself.

All in all, I still think we need to understand what benchmarks we're using talking about medium format maturity. They're not exactly mainstream cameras (yet).