« Sunday Support Group: Strange As Fiction | Main | How Many Pixels Does a Good Man Need? »

Monday, 27 May 2019

Comments

It has more phase detect AF sensors than my first digital camera had photon detecting sensors (or pixels). It was a 2 megapixel Canon Powershot A20.

I've been day dreaming about what lenses I will mount on it when I win the lottery. The 19mm tilt-shift Nikkor would make a dream landscape set-up. Laowa F mount lenses should do well also, especially the 25mm 5x macro. There is already a 17mm Laowa lens that is native to the GF mount.

Of course some of the native lenses look tasty also. I would go with the 45mm and the 110mm primes and the 32-64mm and 100-200mm zooms.

I am pretty sure that fashion photographers will be lining up to pre-order the GFX 100.

Some products epitomize the excesses of a previous era. A decade hence, this camera may well become such a product.

At a time when most users, pro and otherwise, seem to want small, well-connected, easy to use cameras, just how big is the market for a bigger, siloed $10k camera with bulky lenses? Put another way, unless this is intended to solely be a halo product, will there be enough buyers to justify the R&D and manufacturing costs?

It may be embraced by jack-of-all-trades pros and AdAm photographers. But I see few/none high dollar specialists (fashion, commercial, etc) abandoning their Hasselblad/Leica/Phase One cameras.

IBIS doesn't seem to be a requested feature, except by AdAms. Leica has the technology, but they didn't implenet IBIS in their recently announced Leica S3 Medium Format DSLR https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1436753-REG/leica_s3_medium_format_dslr.html The S3 is 64MP, 15 stops Dynamic Range and shoots full sensor DCI 4K video.

Need Tilt & Shift for your work? Sinar (a Leica company) has a P3 view camera that uses S-mount https://www.macconsultshop.de/images/thumbnail/produkte/large/491.83.030_pic1.jpg


S3 video by Three Men etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYhFX9ir-_o

In regard to Kev's comment above, and a brief comment on another photo site (okay, it was Kirk's) there comes a question of whether a medium format sensor, whether film or electronic, requires a larger physical size; not more pixels, but inches (or centimeters.) As someone on there other site noted, the sensor in this machine would be as close in size to a 35mm sensor as it would be to 120 film, and the glass needed to cover it would be similarly downsized from standard MF glass. So as a lens expert, would you say that lenses for this "small" MF would draw like 120, or draw like FF, and would any difference from FF even be perceptible?

[The longstanding rule of thumb is that a 1.5X change is required to be noticeable, and this usually means two steps in terms of things like sensor size or focal length or degree of enlargement / paper size or whatever. So this would predict that "all else being equal," the difference between a 24x36mm sensor and a 33x44mm sensor would be too subtle to be obvious to the viewer. Compounding the difficulty is that I found by empirical experiments that "laypeople" and "photographers" are differently sensitive to such differences...photographers can usually tell more easily which is which because they know what to look for, whereas laypeople just look at the pictures. Of course, there are two problems with all this: one is that rules of thumb are just descriptive, never prescriptive, and, as Ctein says, "all else is never equal." —Mike]

With the IBIS, this would be a good camera for the professional wedding photographer. It might be impressive enough to capture new customers if the added quality of the images could be demonstrated. It could also be pointed out that the competition was using cameras that anyone could buy at, ahem, Best Buy.

I find it strange that they now have a medium format camera with ibis, while it is still a glaring omission in the mainstream X-series.

I don't see why studio pros would have any interest in IBIS, it's really a good feature for the walk around photographer, but I have never found it useful in a studio setting.

The camera is pretty big for us who are used to mirrorless, but so is the spec sheet impressive. Users will probably like this. Personally, I'm not in the market.

I haven't been in the demographic for this for about 20 years, but the lack of at least a couple leaf shutter lenses seems like a big deal for fashion and editorial portrait work. I mean having to use natural light just because you are outdoors is just ecch and 1/125 sync doesn't cut it. A 1/500 sync or better allows you to have a flash that is really inconspicuous, like say an assistant holding little shoe mount flash.

At least there is the FUJIFILM H Mount Adapter G for Hasselblad Fuji lenses.

to equal the aspect ratio that I like shooting and have become used to...24x36mm, one would need to crop these images to 29x44mm, which is only a x1.2 increase in size of the sensor.

Of course there are more pixels and no anti aliasing filter, so there might be a very small perceptual difference in image quality. The extra pixels should make up for the lack of the anti aliasing filter to avoid moire I would guess. And 100 mpx is only 50% more resolution than a 5Ds, not double. So, jumping to conclusions, the difference in image quality would be like going from a 5DII to a 5Ds at best.

I upgraded from a 5D classic to a 5Ds, so that was a jump of double the resolution, and is quite noticeable and near the limit of the lenses. I suspect that I would not see a big difference shooting with this new and heavier Fuji...

Testing my hasselblad and lots of issues but sort of work.

( The orientation is vertical and make me remember the argument you have with another commentator over a medium format vertical camera. Forget what is that. And forget which side you are on. It is behind paywall and hence cannot search ?)

This Fuji camera is indeed a milestone. The costs whilst high is not that for that kind of sensor. It will force innovation of the two lazy guys c&n. But not sure I am around when the long tail comes. Saw a xt1 for < $200.

I've read reports that this - um - beast - can be shot handheld at reasonably low shutter speeds and still per pixel sharp. Extraordinary for 100 mpx. Although it would be utter overkill for any possible use I have, and stretch my finances to breaking without allowance for all the extra hard-drives for those crazy-large files (80 mb for .jpgs!), I sorta want one - just because.

Yes this is the day long-fortold; the coming of the “affordable” 100 MP camera! Having used the GFX50S for over two years (already?) I can say that the it’s a wonderful, versatile camera for field use. I used it most for a particular project that imposed some challenging environmentals on it and it handled just like a full-size DSLR. I would expect the GFX100 to have essentially the same color science as the 50S. Also, having the same sensor size as the GFX50 I would expect I could also continue to use the Canon TSE 17mm and TSE 24mm II lenses (with my Techart adapter) on the GFX100 with the same image characteristics.

Am I planning to get one? Nope. I really have no need for, or interest in, such files. My biggest files come from my Phase One IQ160 full-645-frame CCD back which I have no plans to sell. They’re wonderful and unique. I need nothing larger.

But there is a substantial market for the GFX100 beyond commercial photography (which might not actually be all that large a market any longer). Libraries and smaller museums will certainly be very interested in finally gaining access to such high-res imaging for a fraction of what a Hassy or Phase system would cost. There are also certainly scientific and engineering operations that will be eager to get one of these cameras.

Of course I can guarantee that Phase One and Hasselblad are not happy, as the GFX100 may well erode, and certainly stunt, their already contracting market shares.

So the 100MP IQ3 from Phase One released in 2016 wasn't the first 100MP sensor?

Now if you are talking about a 100MP sensor that can not be "swapped" out then yes. The implication is that the Fuji GFX 100 is the first to 100MP which is false.

Looks like a great platform for a pinhole lens cap :-)

I find it fascinating that people would be bothered by this camera. At $10,000 it's obviously not priced for the vast majority of people doing photography. I have a GFX 50R and think it was categorically worth what I paid for it. I bet this one is worth it too. It's quite a lot of camera for $10,000 when the video part is considered. As for the Leica S, my guess is you could buy this camera plus a few lenses for what the Leica body costs. Yes, I know there are no lenses as good as Leica lenses.....

While I've no doubt it's a darn nice machine, it seems like a product driven by the "just because we can" mode of thinking.

More likely, however, it may really just be a marketing tool. Distribute them among a bunch of big names photogs and show them using it in Fujifilm ads.

Not a new idea, but it has worked in the past.

Cheers

PDLanum - Mike said 'first complete camera body with 100+ Mp'. The Phase One might have 100Mp, but that's in a more modular form, ie it's a 100Mp back, not a complete-in-one-package camera+sensor. I guess Phase One's lawyers can relax. Right, back to the debate about whether it's necessary; the usual Leica arguments by those who would never buy one because of 'x' but really they're just not in the market; the size vs whatever camera people already own; etc! Personally I can't help wondering how much Canon and Nikon hate Fuji - so many great (and stand-out) products coming from them just within the last decade make the big two look like their product labs are just asleep at the wheel...

I am self-employed. When I retire (I can see that day on the horizon) perhaps one of those instead of a gold watch.

I have the GFX 50s and love it. We just finished a 40x30 inch print for a client and it looks amazing at any distance. I don’t need more than that. I think the 100s looks great but I don’t need or want it. Id rather have a few more lenses.

Sharon

Ugly camera.

The comments to this entry are closed.