[rfkiii]

Thinking about buying a Fujifilm GFX 50S? Read this first: Digital Photography Review


Actually, the article is about the Fuji GFX 50s but they throw the X1D and 645z under the bus too. I'd like to rush in with counter arguments but I am afraid I'd come across as nothing more than a fanboy. They compare the 44x33 sensors unfavorably to sensors from the D810 & A7r II neither of which I've tested. I rented the A7r II for a weekend but I was actually checking out the Zeiss Batis 25mm mostly. Any thoughts?

[pathdoc]

I think DPR are full of it. As I understand it, f/stop "equivalence" between format sizes only matters in bokeh/DOF terms because your field of view changes, and to maintain the same framing you have to change your distance (which changes DOF if all else remains unaltered), but they are talking of it as if there is an exposure issue. f/2 is f/2 is f/2 regardless of format size or lens chosen; the only way in which it changes is due to light transmission, and then we are getting into the completely different argument of f/stops versus t/stops (which is valid).

Arguing it out with them would IMO be like throwing pearls before swine.

[VoiceOfReason]

But then again they hid the leaked 645z review that blew their other stuff away back in August of 2015, so I'm not sayng they have an agenda with their advertisers, but....

[biz-engineer]

That's enough to trigger long discussions. If you mount the camera on a tripod (what a lot of pros do), the equivalence is broken because exposure can be increase by as much as the diaphragm is stopped down , + the global increase of image resolution that come with the larger sensor. Full frame deliver the highest image quality without having to spend $10K, especially the Pentax K1 !!!

[boriscleto]

I stopped reading at DPReview.

[monochrome]

If you mount it on a tripod . . .

That's enough to trigger long discussions. If you mount the camera on a tripod (what a lot of pros do), the equivalence is broken because exposure can be increase by as much as the diaphragm is stopped down , + the global increase of image resolution that come with the larger sensor. Full frame deliver the highest image quality without having to spend $10K, especially the Pentax K1 !!!

Now they're clickbaiting Pentax and Fuji users. Hmmmm. Is it near the end of the calendar quarter?

[biz-engineer]

Now they're clickbaiting Pentax and Fuji users.

It works :-)

[Rondec]

We've definitely heard all this before.

Full frame proponents beat the drum that it is the best format because it has the fastest (equivalent) lenses compared to those available for any other size sensor. This ignores, of course, the fact that not all lenses are created equal and that the fact that while 85mm f1.2 lenses exist, they generally aren't very usable wide open because of the shallow depth of field and they often are a little soft at that point with heavy CA as well.

The biggest reasons to shoot larger formats have to do with improvements in dynamic range and noise at other than base iso, meaning that the fact that the D810 has a lower base iso is made somewhat of a moot point. Breaking out the resolution of the Canon D50s is somewhat amusing, as it may have a little more resolution, but it lacks in some of the areas that the D810 is strong in. You can have 50 megapixels or you can have stellar low iso performance in a full frame camera -- but not both -- at least not now.

All of these cameras are nice and if you know what you are doing, you should be able to get good results with any of them, but that doesn't mean that the D810 has made medium format gear worthless.

[RobA_Oz]

It looks a little like what's known as "sandbagging" in other activities - defending your own preference with cherry-picked or spurious arguments. In this case, the arguments or mostly the former, which boil down to DoF and noise, with Fuji's limited range of available lenses thrown in as collateral damage. The commenter who advised waiting to see real, rather than test images was on the money, in my view.

[BigMackCam]

I have no axe to grind with DPR - I'm not a member there, but I use and appreciate some of the facilities they provide, and occasionally read some of the articles and reviews.

Some of Rishi's arguments in this article make good sense, some less so. I'll wait until I see real-world examples from the GFX50S before I pass my own judgement. That said, I see files from the 645Z and, used properly, the detail is astounding. Better (though not jaw-droppingly so) than the K-1, and the K-1 is pretty amazing to someone like me, who still drools over the quality of his K-3 files

Given the similarities between the 645Z and GFX50S, and the K-1 and D810, I suspect the Fuji will be at least as impressive as the 645Z and won't disappoint. But in the meantime, the article generates plenty of additional traffic for DPR. Given that it's a commercial concern, who can blame them?

[ZeljkoS]

I'm not in any way a professional photographer, but I can recognize BS when I see it.
Stopped reading DPR a while back, it's just a bunch of trolling and clickbaiting. Not to mention distorting facts, writing only advertiser approved content and emphasizing only those facts that contribute to their idea/premise.

[texandrews]

Well, the arguments here are pretty murky. They totally ignore some of the more subtle aspects of the difference between sensor sizes, one being tonality gradations---there seems to be a focus on "equivalence" and resolution, followed then by iso performance and DR. What I will say is that there is a lot more heat being generated by both the Fuji and the Hassy.

I think there are several reasons for this that don't have much to do with DMF. One is that Fuji is a hot company right now, nice fan base, and has MF DNA. Another is that Hassy seems (so far) back from their near death experience. Another is that what has come from Canon and Nikon of late has been somewhat blah. Sony has been quite interesting....but there are still some ungenerous feelings towards them as "not a real camera company". And of course Pentax is Rodney Dangerfield.

Some of what is written in that article and its assertions, a big for instance the Z 810 comparison with the rocky shoreline, are belied by the evidence that they provided: just move the little enlargement box around that image a bit a see if you think what you see supports what they assert. I don't. Of course, having owned and used the Z, the A7R, and the K1 (and an A850 before them...), I know where to look to see the differences that matter to me. And I am still seeing the Z coming out on top. BTW, these other cameras I have/had are/were great....love/d them.

So, the final thing is that thing I just said above, "...the differences that matter to me." I'm willing to bet good money those things don't matter at all to all by a tiny fraction of people using cameras. So, in a sense Rishi, the author in this case, is absolutely correct: there's not enough difference here for people to spend the kind of money they'd have to to get into DMF. It really isn't worth it....for them. Of course, probably FF isn't either.

[surfar]

the Fuji GFX 50s but they throw the X1D and 645z under the bus too

Wheres the bus?

[monochrome]

It's Rishi again? Ahhhhh . . . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[KDD]

Write by Rishi! Ignore him.