Mr Perceptive
Perceptive Member
You won't be disappointed with the IQ, lenses are reassuringly expensive (though not as eye-watering as Leica glass)
The musings (ramblings) of a Leica owner
- Thread starter Gromit
- Start date
You won't be disappointed with the IQ, lenses are reassuringly expensive (though not as eye-watering as Leica glass)
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
Thanks David.
Going through all the stuff I've been photographing during the last 12 months, a large amount has been taken at 'fifty' or 'slightly wide' (ie 35mm-ish) focal length. Looking at the GF lens line-up, thinking the 63 might be a good choice. Prices of really clean 50R's aren't overly scary either and I like the 'compact' form.
Mr Perceptive
Perceptive Member
The GF50mm is the budget lightweight compact lens, about 40mm FF focal length, but there are plenty of used GF63mm about.
I have a GF45mm and a GF30mm and intend to add the GF80mm at some point in the future for a 3 prime setup. I went for the 50S as I got a good deal and I wanted the tillable EVF.
The IQ is nothing short of stunning and the shadow recovery just something else. I’m deeply impressed and the files need very little post work. I’ve spent the last week using the X-H1 and really have noticed the difference.
I can understand wanting to move on from a digital M camera. I had an M9 for a while with a 35mm summicron, and I didn’t feel like the results I was getting were in proportion to the crazy amount of money I had invested in the camera. I don’t think the experience of shooting a Leica M film camera translates well to digital.
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
Sadly, I cannot speak from any experience of using a Leica M film camera - I'll have to ask my dad about that (he had an M3 back in the sixties) but would really love to have the opportunity, one day.
I've had a great time with the M240 though, and am so glad to have had the opportunity. For the most part, the results were no better than I would have achieved with (for example) my trusty old Nikon D700, but the experience was always enjoyable.
@Mr Perceptive - thanks for the insight into the GF glass. I need to put some thought into the 45mm vs 63mm, with perhaps a slight leaning to the 45 as it represents a f/l I tend to gravitate towards.
Mr Perceptive
Perceptive Member
Richard, when I 'borrowed' a GFX I was given the 32-64mm, and whilst a great lens, I felt that the size and weight didn't suit me, I know that sounds slightly mad, especially on a relatively (by modern standards) large (heavy) body!! I always knew that I would buy the GF45mm if I bought a GFX as I'm a huge 35mm FF fan - hence my love of the X100's, it was helped by the fact that it was on £400 instant saving when I 'invested' - though not currently on an instant £400 deal (though the 32-64mm is!!). The AF on the GF45mm is supposed to be a little faster than that on the GF63mm. The AF overall isn't fast by modern standards, think X-T1 speed you won't be disappointed.
The GFX50R is quite a slab of a camera (something only its mother could love), and you may find that you benefit from some kind of grip to give your right hand more purchase, especially if you often carry cameras one handed (I invariably do with a wrist strap) or if you opt for the heavier glass.
There are plenty of adapted lens options, with a surprising amount of FF glass capable of covering the sensor, just need to check on the resolving power of the lens, and the optical distortion at the edges as with FF glass you'll be seeing parts of the image circle that you don't usually see! Obviously 645 and other MF glass will also cover the sensor (and use the more central part of the lens optics) but often this glass is quite heavy and the adapters physically quite big (but plenty of room for a tilt shift adapter!)
I bought the GF30mm as I loved the 16mm (24mm FF focal length) on the X series cameras, on the GFX it has been stunning, and I've probably used it more than the 45mm (to date). One feature that is really nice on the GFX is the image ratio options, although the RAW is still saved 4:3 full size, these options make it much easier to frame shots for a target aspect ratio, it obviously has the standard 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1 that are present in the X series, but adds 5:4 (my favourite vertical ratio), 7:6 and 65:24 - the latter shoots a panoramic style shot and has been quite a revelation (especially with the GF30mm, giving a very useable 25MP image)). I've put the aspect ratio selection on a function button, its become a very used utility!
Don't forget that with 50MP there are a lot of cropping options, and the 45mm lens will still give a decent image when cropped , the 35mm Format Mode gives a 30.5MP image.
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
David - what a post! Thanks for all the info.
I've already been looking into adapter options for my Mamiya 645 glass and, whilst not the very sharpest out there, the lenses are quite gorgeous in their rendering. I'm quite excited by that, even more so being able to use my Hasselblad's Planar T 80-2.8.
I've already been looking into adapter options for my Mamiya 645 glass and, whilst not the very sharpest out there, the lenses are quite gorgeous in their rendering. I'm quite excited by that, even more so being able to use my Hasselblad's Planar T 80-2.8.
I totally get where you are coming from. At the end of the day, it comes down to one's personal preferences and what one wants from a camera.
For me, I view the Nikon as a tool. It's a means to an end and it has to perform, delivering the best image quality possible while being 100% reliable and getting out the way, allowing me to realise the image that I have in my head. I want the files to be as accurate and neutral as possible. Think of the Nikon as a pair of studio monitors.
All of this being said, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a camera with a bit more.... 'character'. In my casual photography (family and out and about), it's nice to have something that's a bit more 'tactile'. This is why I now use a Fuji X-E3 for this purpose. The Nikon's UI is more efficient for my landscape work, but the dial and knob centered UI of the Fuji is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for when it comes to my casual photography. It encourages me to be more creative and experimental. I have to say I also 'enjoy' the Fuji shooting experience more than the Nikon. (although I prefer the results from the Nikon in absolute terms). This is where I also use both the film simulations of the Fuji and RNI Films. If the Nikon is a pair of studio monitors, the Fuji and film sims are more like a pair of Audio Note E's or Shahinian Arcs
Of course, this is all just my personal take. There is no wrong or right answer.
To close, here are two images. One which represents my casual photography and was taken with my Fuji X-T2 on holiday, and one which represents my landscape photography, taken with the Nikon Z7 out in the field
Marloes Sands by Amar Sood, on Flickr
Nikon Z7 / Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4.0
Line and Length by Amar Sood, on Flickr
Fujifilm X-T2 / XF18-55mm f2.8-4.0 / VSCO Films Kodak Portra 800
Lefty
John Barry
pfm Member
Lefty said (Quote) "This is where I also use both the film simulations of the Fuji and RNI Films. If the Nikon is a pair of studio monitors, the Fuji and film sims are more like a pair of Audio Note E's or Shahinian Arcs "
What a great analogy! Perhaps that's why I use Fujifilm cameras and have Shahinian speakers.....it all fits together now. I can't see me changing either of them
Get the GFX Richard, it'll be like coming home at last! (if only I could justify getting one as well)
"What a great analogy! Perhaps that's why I use Fujifilm cameras and have Shahinian speakers.....it all fits together now. I can't see me changing either of them
Get the GFX Richard, it'll be like coming home at last! (if only I could justify getting one as well)
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
I'm slowly coming round to the idea, John. One scheme doing the rounds in my head is having a more comprehensive Mu43 set up (I already have Pen F & E-M1 Mk2 and a couple of lenses). This would be a small, highly portable, fast, very compact and light rig yet still with great IQ. IME, Olympus are un-matched in a few areas, notably for macro work (in-body focus stacking is amazing), plus the IBIS is 2nd to none, excepting Panasonic.
The GFX becomes the tool for when IQ is everything.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
I was unconvinced of the prowess of the big Fuji in straight image terms over say the Nikon Z711 or the Sony 7R1V, but then went to look at DPR's galleries of images. In terms of simple sharpness there's not much in it to justify the cost and weight, but there is an obvious and very beautiful something going on between the Fuji's colour engine, its lenses and that sensor. They are quite amazing images and would suit your style of work down to the ground I think. I have an ex pupil who is a prize winning 'street' photographer who now uses one of those huge pro cameras, but he suggested the Fuji to me for just that magical 'something'
His work is here.
https://www.olikellett.com
But anyway, get the Fuji! It's amazing.
Oh and yes...The Oly as a light field cam...exactly. Perfect for wildlife too. What a combo! Come on Lottery!
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
Thanks John - will certainly check that link out.
The other viable option is of course to go for something like a Z7 - clearly one hell of a tool - and I have a couple of lenses which will fit (via the FTZ). The downside, and it really is the only one, is I'd no doubt start building another system around that, finishing up in the same situation as now. The GFX is so different, I think it might just be the ticket as a one body/one lens go-to when IQ is everything.
I totally get where you are coming from. At the end of the day, it comes down to one's personal preferences and what one wants from a camera.
For me, I view the Nikon as a tool. It's a means to an end and it has to perform, delivering the best image quality possible while being 100% reliable and getting out the way, allowing me to realise the image that I have in my head. I want the files to be as accurate and neutral as possible. Think of the Nikon as a pair of studio monitors.
All of this being said, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a camera with a bit more.... 'character'. In my casual photography (family and out and about), it's nice to have something that's a bit more 'tactile'. This is why I now use a Fuji X-E3 for this purpose. The Nikon's UI is more efficient for my landscape work, but the dial and knob centered UI of the Fuji is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for when it comes to my casual photography. It encourages me to be more creative and experimental. I have to say I also 'enjoy' the Fuji shooting experience more than the Nikon. (although I prefer the results from the Nikon in absolute terms). This is where I also use both the film simulations of the Fuji and RNI Films. If the Nikon is a pair of studio monitors, the Fuji and film sims are more like a pair of Audio Note E's or Shahinian Arcs
Of course, this is all just my personal take. There is no wrong or right answer.
To close, here are two images. One which represents my casual photography and was taken with my Fuji X-T2 on holiday, and one which represents my landscape photography, taken with the Nikon Z7 out in the field
Marloes Sands by Amar Sood, on Flickr
Nikon Z7 / Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4.0
Line and Length by Amar Sood, on Flickr
Fujifilm X-T2 / XF18-55mm f2.8-4.0 / VSCO Films Kodak Portra 800
Lefty
The Nikon Z6ii (and no doubt the all Z cameras) are wonderful tools being able to do pretty much everything to an extremely high standard. And therein lies the issue for me in some respects - it doesn't stick out from the crowd in any way. Just as a professional camera should be I suppose.
In hindsight I should probably have gone for the older Z7 for a similar price - at least the sensor in that camera would have provided that something a little different.
Mr Perceptive
Perceptive Member
The images from the GFX have so much more "depth" to them than FF or APSC, its difficult to describe. The resolution/sharpness is a given but the forgiving nature (and dynamic range of teh sensor) is quite something. Acceptable images can be pulled out of the darkness - Shadow slider only!
Exposed for sky
Recovered
Thats just made @Lefty look in his piggy bank
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Yes it’s hard to describe. There is a sort of glow, a luminescence in the fuji images on Dpr. There is something similar going on with the Z6 if you get the lens right, but as you say it doesn’t seem to have the depth of colour and light. I’ve no idea how they do it but it’s very special.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
It’s made me look in my piggy bank too, But all I can see in there, are my wife’s eyes staring back out at me, and they don’t look happy.
Mr Perceptive
Perceptive Member
I got encouragement......................
Rockmeister
pfm Member
Well I don’t wish to hear that
My wife is Scots, And a particularly parsimonious Scots family to boots. One camera in the house is extreme luxury, two means frosty silences and three???!
Lefty said (Quote) "This is where I also use both the film simulations of the Fuji and RNI Films. If the Nikon is a pair of studio monitors, the Fuji and film sims are more like a pair of Audio Note E's or Shahinian Arcs
What a great analogy! Perhaps that's why I use Fujifilm cameras and have Shahinian speakers.....it all fits together now. I can't see me changing either of them
Haha. FWIW, I used to own Shahinians (Arcs and Obs) and also both AN J and E. I currently own a pair of PMC TwoTwo 6
It definitely sounds like you are looking for something a bit different to what the Nikon offers. I have a feeling you would have liked the Sony even less. They are both (intentionally) utilitarian and certainly don't stand out. My advice would be to spend some time with the Z6II and get used to its files. Whenever changing camera systems, it takes me a good 3 - 4 months to really learn how to get the most out of the files. Having said that, it sounds like it might not be for you. I have a feeling the Z7 wouldn't have hit the spot either. Perhaps a Fujifilm X camera might be a happier choice? They are very capable and certainly have more character to their files than the Nikon / Sony.
The images from the GFX have so much more "depth" to them than FF or APSC, its difficult to describe. The resolution/sharpness is a given but the forgiving nature (and dynamic range of teh sensor) is quite something. Acceptable images can be pulled out of the darkness - Shadow slider only!
Exposed for sky
Recovered
Thats just made @Lefty look in his piggy bank
Haha - I can get similar results with the Z7
Joking aside, I did seriously consider the GFX. However, in the end I discounted it for the same reasons I didn't take to shooting MF film. I think it will be too limiting in terms of handheld shooting (which is what I do 99% of the time) and also the telephoto glass just isn't there..... yet. (and if / when it arrives, it's likely to be very heavy / expensive). This is important for me as my 70-300 is a workhorse lens for me.
For my personal needs, I think the current crop of FF cameras represents a sweet spot of price / IQ / flexibility which is very hard to overlook. Indeed, the latest DXO review of the Nikon Z7II sensor had this to say vs MF sensors:
DXO said:
Lefty
Gromit
Plasticine Dog
@Lefty - liking the hifi analogy! I've heard a rumour that PFM is also an audio forum so rather apt...
This may be (or probably will be) more random rambling from me, but I do wonder if some of the GFX magic comes from its use of a conventional Bayer filter array. We all appreciate that when it comes to colour science, Fuji is amongst the very best, but X-Trans might in fact be hindering rather than helping in other bodies - especially when RAFs are converted in software that isn't really getting the best from them.
One reason I've been thinking this is that a friend of mine recently bought an X-T200 which is putting out the most beautiful images, reminding me so much of the original X100. The GFX is just the same, but using a much bigger engine.
I'll be nipping into LCE again next week to have a look at the 50R vs the Z7 - they only have a new GFX on the shelf, but will ship a used one in from another branch for next day if I decide to go for it.
This may be (or probably will be) more random rambling from me, but I do wonder if some of the GFX magic comes from its use of a conventional Bayer filter array. We all appreciate that when it comes to colour science, Fuji is amongst the very best, but X-Trans might in fact be hindering rather than helping in other bodies - especially when RAFs are converted in software that isn't really getting the best from them.
One reason I've been thinking this is that a friend of mine recently bought an X-T200 which is putting out the most beautiful images, reminding me so much of the original X100. The GFX is just the same, but using a much bigger engine.
I'll be nipping into LCE again next week to have a look at the 50R vs the Z7 - they only have a new GFX on the shelf, but will ship a used one in from another branch for next day if I decide to go for it.