Canon EOS 1DX MKIII or Fuji GFX 100

[Alt Shoo]

@DaveAltizer cool suggestion, but as much as I can appreciate RED’s workflow and IQ, I can’t support a company with questionable business strategies. 

[photographer-at-large]

I’d be interested if the cinema variant of the GFX100 is still on track.  I forget if the sensor is Quad Bayer in addition to being x-trans technology?

[mrtreve]

I tried the 1DX III at BSC today and the rolling shutter was pretty bad imo... it's one downside to consider.

There was a GFX100 at the Fujinon booth which had a Premista zoom on there and the footage looked nice on the monitor. I love the ratio of the sensor for stills too.

Weirdly though as a product it kind of felt like the Fuji would seem dated sooner... could be the boxy product design. Perhaps the next version in that line might feel better in the hand. The 1DX feels so nice in terms of all the buttons and dials.

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, photographer-at-large said:

I’d be interested if the cinema variant of the GFX100 is still on track.  I forget if the sensor is Quad Bayer in addition to being x-trans technology?

https://www.eoshd.com/news/fujifilm-hint-at-44x33-large-format-gfx-h100-filmmakers-camera-open-gate-4k3k/

[Alt Shoo]

15 hours ago, photographer-at-large said:

I’d be interested if the cinema variant of the GFX100 is still on track.  I forget if the sensor is Quad Bayer in addition to being x-trans technology?

I was wondering if Fuji would take the opportunity to leap frog over the FF video segment with a more video centric Medium Format camera and then @Andrew Reid reminded me of his post from last year. Thanks for the reminder! I remember reading that post thinking it would be a great time for Fuji to step their feet into the cinema camera realm. They have a great handle on color science and to my eyes are comparable to Canon’s “legendary” color science.
The pluses for this theoretical cinema camera from Fuji are the huge sensor, 1.7x bigger than full frame, which will produce a shallower depth of field, enhanced tonal gradient in 10-bit output (hopefully RAW), and greater ISO sensitivity. The large format size will produce video footage with more detailed textures while reproducing three dimensional definition.....It would make sense. 

[Alt Shoo]

On another note, I thought Fuji designed the sensor and Sony only manufactured it. I didn’t know Sony designed and manufactured the sensors for Fuji. 

[noone]

5 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

The pluses for this theoretical cinema camera from Fuji are the huge sensor, 1.7x bigger than full frame, which will produce a shallower depth of field

Only if all things are equal and they are not as there are not as many fast lenses for MF than there are for FF.       There are actually some MF lenses (mainly for aerial photography) that are just silly fast but are very rare and very expensive while more "regular" lenses favour FF for speed at the moment.     The fastest lens for the GFX is what, 110 f2?   So about a 87mm 1.2 equivalent?    There are a few f1 lenses for FF as well as 1.2 and lots of 1.4.    

[Jerome Chiu]

2 hours ago, noone said:

Only if all things are equal and they are not as there are not as many fast lenses for MF than there are for FF.       There are actually some MF lenses (mainly for aerial photography) that are just silly fast but are very rare and very expensive while more "regular" lenses favour FF for speed at the moment.     The fastest lens for the GFX is what, 110 f2?   So about a 87mm 1.2 equivalent?    There are a few f1 lenses for FF as well as 1.2 and lots of 1.4.    

Don't forget we already have the Metabones Hasselblad V to GFX Speedbooster, with which we get 0.56x crop for stills, 0.62x crop for 4K DCI, and 0.65x crop for 4K UHD.

The Hasselblad 110mm f2 would thus get the equivalent (to full-frame) angle of view of 62mm, 68mm, and 72mm respectively, and one stop faster (i.e. about T1.6). The image characteristics of this lens attached to the GFX are thus very roughly equivalent to 62mm f1.1, 68mm f1.25, and 72mm f1.3 (in full-frame) respectively. You could do your own calculations for other Hasselblad V lenses.

The shutterless F and FE lenses could be easily de-clicked, and all have long focus throw (around 300 degrees!).  One downside is they don't use rounded aperture blades, and some use as few as 5 (FIVE!), facilitating some rather unique highlight bokeh pentagons.

[noone]

You still have the same issue, even with speedboosters/focal reducers for larger format lens in that there are not that many that are available that become any faster than lenses already available for FF.      You will have some that will be about AS fast but not really any faster and of course, any lens you can speedboost for MF you should be able to do likewise for FF.     

FF lenses are sometimes not that far off of the limits to speed that can be made readily which is why that seems to be the sweetspot in that you can make "affordable" lenses that are only a stop or two slower than the limits in air (f0.5 or 0.6 is it?)    Bigger than FF and the market is a LOT smaller, and the lenses are bigger so they cost more and do not usually get made in any great numbers and especially at faster speeds.

My kit of (mostly) ancient lenses includes a 24 1.4, an 85 1.2 and 300 2.8 and I used to have a couple of 50 1.2 (oh and I have a 135mm 1.8 even if it is not very good) lenses used FF ....what would I use to replace those with the GFX that had shallower DOF?

 

 No question that it should work if there were the lenses available but there are not.     I would also love to try my Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E on a GFX as it would fit without vignetting and be wider.

[Alt Shoo]

Was just scouring the web and came across this. To me this image looks very theatrical. 
 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Does a full frame like the Nikon Z6 with a speedbooster get the same FOV as a Fuji GFX

[Jerome Chiu]

On 2/3/2020 at 6:44 AM, noone said:

[Snip]

My kit of (mostly) ancient lenses includes a 24 1.4, an 85 1.2 and 300 2.8 and I used to have a couple of 50 1.2 (oh and I have a 135mm 1.8 even if it is not very good) lenses used FF ....what would I use to replace those with the GFX that had shallower DOF?

No question that it should work if there were the lenses available but there are not.     I would also love to try my Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E on a GFX as it would fit without vignetting and be wider.

24mm f1.4 on FF gets an approximately 26mm angle of view with the 4K DCI full-width crop, and about 27mm with the 4K UHD crop. I'd recommended the Sigma Art 28mm f1.4 for use with the GFX 100 for a roughly equivalent angle of view, viz. 0.92x28= 26mm. Yes, it does cover the 0.92x 4K UHD crop inside the current GFX 100.

As for the 85mm f1.2: about 91mm (4K DCI full-width) and 96mm (4K UHD) respectively. Both Nikon and Sigma have, each of them, a 105mm f1.4. It would yield a 96mm angle of view (FF equivalent) image in the 4K UHD crop on the GFX 100.

You could put the 300mm f2.8 onto the GFX to see if you like it. If you need the FF equivalent of 300mm, then probably you should stick with smaller formats, as is the case for everything tele.

The TS-E 17mm covers 54x40mm sensors (but with next to no movement), so of course it covers 44x33mm, with room for some movement. The same is true for the TS-E 24mm Mark 2. I'd guess the newer ones (viz. 50mm macro, 90mm macro, 135mm macro) would all cover with room for movement.

[Jerome Chiu]

30 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Does a full frame like the Nikon Z6 with a speedbooster get the same FOV as a Fuji GFX

First and foremost: you could forget about AF, as of now, if you do it. Currently, I could think of 2 ways to do it: (a) EF to E Speedbooster, then E to Z adapter (yup, the notorious Techart, my friend!); (b) Kipon Baveyes EF to E, then (again) E to Z.

Onto your question: yes, and a bit more as well. A one-stop focal reducer introduces a 0.71x crop factor, so we get a 0.71x crop for stills, a 0.76x crop for 4K DCI full-width, and a 0.8x crop for 4K UHD. In other words, we get roughly the same crop factor for 4K UHD with the focal reducer in FF as the GFX for stills.

Only as a rule of thumb: a full-frame lens 75mm or above should cover this crop, but of course we should conduct tests to verify it before jumping right in.

[noone]

2 hours ago, Jerome Chiu said:

24mm f1.4 on FF gets an approximately 26mm angle of view with the 4K DCI full-width crop, and about 27mm with the 4K UHD crop. I'd recommended the Sigma Art 28mm f1.4 for use with the GFX 100 for a roughly equivalent angle of view, viz. 0.92x28= 26mm. Yes, it does cover the 0.92x 4K UHD crop inside the current GFX 100.

As for the 85mm f1.2: about 91mm (4K DCI full-width) and 96mm (4K UHD) respectively. Both Nikon and Sigma have, each of them, a 105mm f1.4. It would yield a 96mm angle of view (FF equivalent) image in the 4K UHD crop on the GFX 100.

You could put the 300mm f2.8 onto the GFX to see if you like it. If you need the FF equivalent of 300mm, then probably you should stick with smaller formats, as is the case for everything tele.

The TS-E 17mm covers 54x40mm sensors (but with next to no movement), so of course it covers 44x33mm, with room for some movement. The same is true for the TS-E 24mm Mark 2. I'd guess the newer ones (viz. 50mm macro, 90mm macro, 135mm macro) would all cover with room for movement.

Just pointing out that you are using a few examples that get you close to getting AS shallow DOF with it than is readily available FF but those are few and far between and do not get you SHALLOWER than what you can get for the most part.      There are many valid reasons to get the GFX and I think the OP SHOULD get it over the Canon from what he has said but given existing lenses that are available, shallow DOF still usually goes to FF over the GFX for now anyway for the most part.      If you just use slow lenses on either, then yes, the GFX DOF control is "better" (my opinion).       300 2.8 is a sweet spot for FF for me too since I use it sometimes for live bands outdoors at night or low light gigs with room and I need the high ISO I get withmy FF camera. 

[Jerome Chiu]

2 hours ago, noone said:

Just pointing out that you are using a few examples that get you close to getting AS shallow DOF with it than is readily available FF but those are few and far between and do not get you SHALLOWER than what you can get for the most part. 

Other things being equal, 28mm f1.4 on GFX has shallower DoF than 24mm f1.4 on FF; likewise 105mm f1.4 on GFX has shallower DoF than 85mm f1.2 on FF. It's physics.

As for "few and far between": how about Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 (on GFX 100 4K UHD 0.92x crop, wide open at mid- to close distance or stopped down at infinity), Sigma Art 24mm f1.4 (ditto), Sigma Art 40mm f1.4, Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM, Sigma Art 50mm f1.4, Leica Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH, and pretty much every FF lens with focal lengths equal to or longer than 75mm?

Of course, many people don't want to deal with the soft vignettes that often result from putting full-frame lenses on a larger format such as the GFX. I totally understand that. Personally I don't mind, and I would stick with lenses that completely cover the sensor in those cases where vignetting is not welcome. This is also where the Hasselblads come in, too.

 

2 hours ago, noone said:

There are many valid reasons to get the GFX and I think the OP SHOULD get it over the Canon from what he has said but given existing lenses that are available, shallow DOF still usually goes to FF over the GFX for now anyway for the most part.      If you just use slow lenses on either, then yes, the GFX DOF control is "better" (my opinion).       300 2.8 is a sweet spot for FF for me too since I use it sometimes for live bands outdoors at night or low light gigs with room and I need the high ISO I get with my FF camera. 

Agreed.

For the record, I don't go after DoF this shallow. What I'm after is nice bokeh at f4 or f5.6 from 28mm (FF equivalent) upwards. If I need shallower DoF at all, then it would be with lenses wider than 28mm (FF equivalent), e.g. 20mm f2.8, 14mm f2, etc.

As we all know, we often need more, not less, DoF, thus we appreciate the smallness of M43 and 1-inch sensors under those circumstances.

One extreme example (albeit in photography) is when one tries to hit focus with the Cooke Portrait PS945 (229mm f4.5) using 8x10 film (quite adventurous, for it is supposed to be a 4x5 lens, but it does cover 8x10 at portrait distance wide open), yielding a 32mm equivalent (to FF) angle of view -- very good for environmental portraiture. But the lens's famous soft focus effects diminish as we stop down, so if one covets the soft focus effects then he has to struggle with this extremely shallow DoF while trying to nail focus looking at the ground glass with the image upside down and left-side right, where even the brightest ground glass is much darker than the EVF we are now used to. We are talking about a rough equivalence of a 32mm f0.63 lens here.

I am telling you all these since you love shallow DoF, my friend. Cheers!

[noone]

14 hours ago, Jerome Chiu said:

Other things being equal, 28mm f1.4 on GFX has shallower DoF than 24mm f1.4 on FF; likewise 105mm f1.4 on GFX has shallower DoF than 85mm f1.2 on FF. It's physics.

As for "few and far between": how about Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 (on GFX 100 4K UHD 0.92x crop, wide open at mid- to close distance or stopped down at infinity), Sigma Art 24mm f1.4 (ditto), Sigma Art 40mm f1.4, Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM, Sigma Art 50mm f1.4, Leica Summilux-M 50mm f1.4 ASPH, and pretty much every FF lens with focal lengths equal to or longer than 75mm?

Of course, many people don't want to deal with the soft vignettes that often result from putting full-frame lenses on a larger format such as the GFX. I totally understand that. Personally I don't mind, and I would stick with lenses that completely cover the sensor in those cases where vignetting is not welcome. This is also where the Hasselblads come in, too.

 

Agreed.

For the record, I don't go after DoF this shallow. What I'm after is nice bokeh at f4 or f5.6 from 28mm (FF equivalent) upwards. If I need shallower DoF at all, then it would be with lenses wider than 28mm (FF equivalent), e.g. 20mm f2.8, 14mm f2, etc.

As we all know, we often need more, not less, DoF, thus we appreciate the smallness of M43 and 1-inch sensors under those circumstances.

One extreme example (albeit in photography) is when one tries to hit focus with the Cooke Portrait PS945 (229mm f4.5) using 8x10 film (quite adventurous, for it is supposed to be a 4x5 lens, but it does cover 8x10 at portrait distance wide open), yielding a 32mm equivalent (to FF) angle of view -- very good for environmental portraiture. But the lens's famous soft focus effects diminish as we stop down, so if one covets the soft focus effects then he has to struggle with this extremely shallow DoF while trying to nail focus looking at the ground glass with the image upside down and left-side right, where even the brightest ground glass is much darker than the EVF we are now used to. We are talking about a rough equivalence of a 32mm f0.63 lens here.

I am telling you all these since you love shallow DoF, my friend. Cheers!

Again, I used MY kit which is mostly old stuff that does not cost that much.

Of course a 1.4 lens on a larger sensor has shallower DOF than the same lens on a smaller sensor.     My point is simply there is much more choice AVAILABLE for shallower DOF with FF than there is currently with a GFX.   

There are actually lenses made for larger formats that blow away anything made for FF (EG there is even  250mm f0.75 large format lens and 150mm f0.75 medium format lens both for aerial photography...not that i would ever see either of those)...those are not used for shallow DOF though but more for their speed....how would one of THOSE go on a FF camera with a speed booster? (actually probably not great as it would probably not give any increase really for technical limits).

      I actually do not use shallow DOF all that much but rather I use the RIGHT DOF for MY purposes.      Even a f0.75 lens can have infinite DOF at some distance (those aerial lenses for instance are made for use at distance).      The problem with using fast lenses wide open for landscapes for example where the result might not be great with fast wide angles is more likely to be a field curvature issue than anything else.

My 85 1.2 lens was/is (it needs a repair though still works) usually used stopped down to f2 or 2.8 or even f4.    Same with the 50 1.2 lenses I had.     My 300 2.8 I mostly use AT 2.8 but that is because I think that is the sweet spot for human sized subjects at the distance i use it and giving me high enough shutter speeds (especially at night) at a subject isolating DOF.      When I had the money, i almost purchased an old Nikon 300 f2 though am glad i did not now that I am getting old.

Again, I AGREE that IF you have the lenses larger formats give more DOF control but again, the lenses are just not there. 

If you just want a lens to fit, well FF Sony can pretty much take any lens made ....there are even adapters for M43 but they mostly have a huge vignette (though you can remove that in camera using clear zoom).   Or a lens like the Ibelux 40 f0.85 that is actually made for E mount (again APSC with vignetting FF that can be removed with clear zoom)....Lots of isolated adapted choices either way.    but "normal" lenses?