Skiff
Well-known
SaveKodak
Well-known
The conclusions in this article are similar to those I came to about why I shouldn't get into the X APS-C system.
brbo
Well-known
I expected Fuji to perform worse, but in the actual side by side comparisons it beats the best 35mm cameras in DR and high ISO. Not bad for a sensor that is not really much bigger than 36x24mm.
Well that is a first. I have never read such a biased hatchet job review that did not even have the camera in hand that the reviewer was damning.
I wonder what the writers agenda is, just getting clicks for controversy or is he trying to defend the Hassy and Phase 1 franchises?
It seems odd the article appears now attacking the GFX, since the same arguments could have been used for some years to attack the same size Pentax medium format sensor.
The GFX looks to be so far the MOST adaptable full frame or medium format or large format camera digital platform ever made. His thoughts on Fuji GFX lens cost completely ignores the hundreds (or thousands) of very inexpensive prime lenses which can be adapted to the GFX. The 4x5 camera adapter is brilliant, as is the Hassy lens adapter. Add to that full cooperation by Fuji with independent lens adapter manufacturers. A year from now its going to be difficult to find a medium format or FF lens mount which does not have a GFX adapter.
BTW, Fuji steadfastly maintains the GFX sensor is a new and improved sensor, ie NOT the same as the long used Pentax 645 sensor. Skeptics scoff at that, but if you were putting millions into a new camera system, wouldn't you make sure that your new camera had a sensor that was better than other same size sensors?
I personally believe the GFX is a major event in camera technology, a camera that other manufacturers will chasing for the foreseeable future. Time will tell. Buckle your seat belts, its going to be interesting as all of this plays out.
Stephen
Corran
Well-known
I had one in hand a couple of weeks ago and I did not like it at all. I have never used a Fuji digital camera so it was very foreign but I couldn't shake the feeling that it was poorly designed for how I interact with a camera. My Nikon DSLRs are much better in that regard - as was the Hasselblad X1D I also tried.
Whether or not haptics are important to you or if you "click" with the Fuji is a different story.
As for the comments in the article and the ones above, I would wager the article's author is right. The sensor isn't that much bigger than FF and the newest Sony sensors are phenomenal. Combined with faster lenses negating the need for higher ISOs using regular 35mm FF cameras compared to the MF equivalents means that in most situations the marginal increase in IQ from a larger sensor is squandered. At base ISO on a tripod at optimal aperture you might get a bit more resolution or DR, but probably marginal at best.
My only interest in the Fuji/Hasselblad systems would be the adaptability of MF view camera lenses with full t/s ability for architectural work in my business. Other than that, for typical portrait/wedding/event photography I would not dream of using this Fuji or any other MF system.
Whether or not haptics are important to you or if you "click" with the Fuji is a different story.
As for the comments in the article and the ones above, I would wager the article's author is right. The sensor isn't that much bigger than FF and the newest Sony sensors are phenomenal. Combined with faster lenses negating the need for higher ISOs using regular 35mm FF cameras compared to the MF equivalents means that in most situations the marginal increase in IQ from a larger sensor is squandered. At base ISO on a tripod at optimal aperture you might get a bit more resolution or DR, but probably marginal at best.
My only interest in the Fuji/Hasselblad systems would be the adaptability of MF view camera lenses with full t/s ability for architectural work in my business. Other than that, for typical portrait/wedding/event photography I would not dream of using this Fuji or any other MF system.
Spanik
Well-known
Article gets lost in a bunch of "equivalence" double talk that gets so thick the author get lost himself.
DominikDUK
Well-known
The author seems to have been a bit confused. High ISO who cares about high ISO performance certainly not most MF-Digital camera users. Those who need high iso and superfast lenses are certainly better off with one of the many APS-C or FF cameras. Those who need a portable MF system have now a bit more choice.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
Perhaps you didn't spend enough time to get accustomed with the body, just like me never liking Nikon DSLR ergonomics as I grew up shooting Canon DSLR.
While the design of the X1D is slick, clean I heard the inside was a nightmare, slow startup, slow processing, short battery life.
I had the opportunity to briefly play with the GFX and it felt just like any DSLRs that I held in the past... Canon, Nikon, Pentax and even Leica SL
I was looking last night at a comparison shot between the D810, A7RII,5DsR and GFX50S and the detail you can pull out from it is astounding (all at their respective lowest ISO)
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...88&x=0.3290022670096214&y=-0.2336971289494519
mich rassena
Well-known
Having not seen or handled the camera in person, I'm still hopeful that what you say is the case. I hope Canon, Sony and Nikon will all introduce larger than full frame bodies and lenses in the near future (2 to 3 years), and will all compete on price as well as features. This product might just be what it takes to push full frame down-market into the low $1000 range for the lowest-cost models over the next 3 to 5 years.
Corran
Well-known
Of course I didn't have enough time with it while on a trade show floor. But it was enough to know it'd be an uphill battle learning how the thing works. After using almost every Nikon SLR and DSLR type out there they are like an extension of my hand when shooting, so of course I have a preference towards those controls.
I did notice both the Fuji and Blad had some issues with EVF lag, but the Fuji was worse. That is the extent of my real opinions on the technical side as I didn't have any memory cards to throw in the camera (just a bag full of film
).
Base ISO will certainly be where any MF digital system would be at its most competitive. Once you do anything else though, the differences probably evaporate. So it's a specific use case scenario IMO.
I did notice both the Fuji and Blad had some issues with EVF lag, but the Fuji was worse. That is the extent of my real opinions on the technical side as I didn't have any memory cards to throw in the camera (just a bag full of film
).Base ISO will certainly be where any MF digital system would be at its most competitive. Once you do anything else though, the differences probably evaporate. So it's a specific use case scenario IMO.
Skiff
Well-known
So, "the proof is in the pudding"....
.Meanwhile I had the chance to test the GFX intensively (my professional camera dealer offered it to me for a several day test).
I want to make it short:
I can agree to most points written in the dpreview article. It is a good camera. It slightly surpasses the high-resolution DSLRs in some aspects. But the difference is not big, often it is quite small, and not significant enough in real world shots (pixel-peeping is not photography).
In other aspects the D810 remains king ( I compared it directly to the D810).
Summary for me: The huge investment needed for a GFX-kit with accessoires and lenses (in my case more than 13,000 bucks) will not give me enough advantages to make such an investment worth it.
Not enough advantages, and the advantages which are given are not important, not significant enough for me compared to the established alternatives.
The price-performance ratio is not convincing for me.
So I will stay with FF/35mm (digital and film) and real medium formats (film; 4,5x6, 6x6, 6x9).