Digital Medium Format Thread

Topsy said:
I looked at the RAW File in the link and downloaded it. Wide open isn't the best aperture to judge a lens by from any manufacturer but I openned it in LR and simply applied my normal preset to it and I think the result is better than the original jpg in the review. Unfortunately I've had to downsize it to post it.View attachment 321305
Click to expand...

The lens seems OK in the middle, but corners are the real issue, and the RH top corner in particular. If this was a kit lens at a pro-rata price then I'd say it was great, but for a premium price if this were mine then I'd want to keep returning it until I got a properly centred copy.
 
SFTPhotography said:
A bit....LOL.

Maybe it's poor construction, maybe they are fragile but whatever are we really saying this is acceptable performance.

Because it isn't.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling using the 645 has spoiled you a little Steve. It's better than most lenses I had on Nikon FX, certainly better than the 50 f1.8G, but probably not as good as the Samyang 85 f1.4. I don't think it's as good as the Sony 24-105 G, although it's hard to tell because 24MP vs 50MP.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I have a feeling using the 645 has spoiled you a little Steve. It's better than most lenses I had on Nikon FX, certainly better than the 50 f1.8G, but probably not as good as the Samyang 85 f1.4. I don't think it's as good as the Sony 24-105 G, although it's hard to tell because 24MP vs 50MP.
Click to expand...

Nikon FX and the subpar lenses was the reason I bought the 645z :p. Bar the Sigma ARTs, 20 1.8 and 70-200 2.8 and oddly 200-500 I have I never thought that much of the glass. Good cameras, crap short glass is my honest feeling. Even the fabled 14-24 wasn't great, I ended up cutting 4x3's and 1x1's out of it because the edges...just soo damned smeary.

I am pernickity but I hope it shows in my pictures. I'll never settle for anything that isn't perfect. It is how I am.

gman said:
Thanks, I was hoping for a jpg export but I'm assuming these will import into Lightroom fine?
Click to expand...


They're all RAWs and all supported by LR. No point sending sharpened JPEGs. Play with these and enjoy. I use DXO but many 645z users use LR.
 
Last edited:
Those photos you've provided don't have anything in the corners except one with trees in the bottom left, but I'm not sure if motion from the wind or the shutter speed could be having an impact? Kind of difficult to compare at the moment, do you have anything with detail going into the corners?
 
gman said:
Those photos you've provided don't have anything in the corners except one with trees in the bottom left, but I'm not sure if motion from the wind or the shutter speed could be having an impact? Kind of difficult to compare at the moment, do you have anything with detail going into the corners?
Click to expand...

Scrub. Generating a further link with further files.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
The lens seems OK in the middle, but corners are the real issue, and the RH top corner in particular. If this was a kit lens at a pro-rata price then I'd say it was great, but for a premium price if this were mine then I'd want to keep returning it until I got a properly centred copy.
Click to expand...
ancient_mariner said:
I have a feeling using the 645 has spoiled you a little Steve. It's better than most lenses I had on Nikon FX, certainly better than the 50 f1.8G, but probably not as good as the Samyang 85 f1.4. I don't think it's as good as the Sony 24-105 G, although it's hard to tell because 24MP vs 50MP.
Click to expand...

You should not forget this is a whooping £2.5k only f/4 very short zoom lens. It is really not much of a zoom in this range at all. You have to judge is at that, ie. very harshly. I expected miracles to be honest and found none in this lens.

It will be suffice to say that my £100 canon 50mm f/1.8 at 5.6 on 5ds absolutely destroys 32-64 on gfx100 in print in corners. It is rather hard not to spot the price difference and relative performance going the wrong way.
 
gman said:
Those photos you've provided don't have anything in the corners except one with trees in the bottom left, but I'm not sure if motion from the wind or the shutter speed could be having an impact? Kind of difficult to compare at the moment, do you have anything with detail going into the corners?
Click to expand...

Trees bottom left - is that the Fuji or Pentax file. and look at the 50mm Fuji file...at the buildings at the sides.

Further files from my camera. Waterfall pic, rock right into bottom left corner, right side - detail all up the side.

Other shot, detail right along the bottom - and you can get these 45-85's off eBay cheap.
 
Last edited:
The solid brick in the middle is sharp, but the trees in the bottom left corner not so much. But could it be the 1/25 shutter speed causing this?

1623703724803.png 1623703749351.png
 
gman said:
The solid brick in the middle is sharp, but the trees in the bottom left corner not so much. But could it be the 1/25 shutter speed causing this?

View attachment 321309 View attachment 321310
Click to expand...

At that focal length - unlikely. Look at the bottom right. Also look at the other file from it at 50mm. The buildings and the bridge man...
 
SFTPhotography said:
Trees bottom left - is that the Fuji or Pentax file. and look at the 50mm Fuji file...at the buildings at the sides.
Click to expand...

It is a Fuji file.

Do you mean this re. the 50mm? It is a 60 second exposure though.

1623704015141.png



The Pentax looks a lot better though:

1623704069184.png
 
Last edited:
gman said:
It is a Fuji file.

Do you mean this re. the 50mm?

View attachment 321311



The Pentax looks a lot better though:

View attachment 321312
Click to expand...

Yes. Now you see what this afternoon and evening has been all about. Re the 60secs. Look at the very middle, tack sharp, but both sides really soft. That speaks to lens performance, not photographer performance. I've shot with this guy, amateur chump blurry exposures isn't something he does.

I don't rant for the fun of it you know.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
The solid brick in the middle is sharp, but the trees in the bottom left corner not so much. But could it be the 1/25 shutter speed causing this?
Click to expand...

Everything you see is from a very solid tripod with 2s timer and electronic shutter.
 
Here's a corner from my Sony lens at f8. Bear in mind it's only a 24MP sensor but even that's sharp enough I reckon?

(excuse the hand, was a screenshot lol)

1623704503256.png
 
TimHughes said:
I’m very happy with my 32-64 fwiw.

The review on imaging resource has a different opinion too. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/gf-32-64mm-f4-r-lm-wr/review/
Click to expand...

I looked them up and downloaded 3 x 50mp files. These do look very good to me.

I have obviously zero investment in any of these or any camera company shares so my interest only goes as far as picking the good products. I have no idea what is going on with rental vs that sample copy vs yours vs one Steve saw before. It could be sample variation, and terrible QC at Fuji, or it could be bad internal assembly resulting in more and more softening over time, or simply this could have been bashed to death.
I see this with Canon too a lot. 24-70mm is meant to be stellar but are hardly ever so in real life. And remember 17-40 lottery and all super shoddy 16-35mm f/2.8s before f/4 came out, and even that is not flawless.
 
Another corner, 35mm at f8 handheld, ISO 320. If mine can do this and it's miles away from MF resolution, then I definitely see where you are coming from.


1623704756433.png



EDIT: and the full photo for reference

Reference shot.jpg
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Bear in mind it's only a 24MP
Click to expand...

Just a general note: be careful drawing any deep or final conclusions from 22-24MP cameras. I have a few that look like this on 5DIII but fall apart at 50MP. Obviously if it is the other way round you just have to get rid of them ASAP.

This is all obviously mainly relevant for large format printing or heavy crops.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You should not forget this is a whooping £2.5k only f/4 very short zoom lens. It is really not much of a zoom in this range at all. You have to judge is at that, ie. very harshly. I expected miracles to be honest and found none in this lens.

It will be suffice to say that my £100 canon 50mm f/1.8 at 5.6 on 5ds absolutely destroys 32-64 on gfx100 in print in corners. It is rather hard not to spot the price difference and relative performance going the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Hence my comment about a kit lens. Sony did something similar with their E mount 24-70 f4, which was like a kit lens in every way except for fixed aperture and price, so it's not just Fuji who miss badly, though £2K+ is a lot for something that isn't absolutely spectacular.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Hence my comment about a kit lens. Sony did something similar with their E mount 24-70 f4, which was like a kit lens in every way except for fixed aperture and price, so it's not just Fuji who miss badly, though £2K+ is a lot for something that isn't absolutely spectacular.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing - look at the images I've linked from that sample site and quite a few are poor, then there is the horror show from me and LLP today. It's not even that it's not spectacular, but actually pretty abysmal tbh.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Just a general note: be careful drawing any deep or final conclusions from 22-24MP cameras. I have a few that look like this on 5DIII but fall apart at 50MP. Obviously if it is the other way round you just have to get rid of them ASAP.

This is all obviously mainly relevant for large format printing or heavy crops.
Click to expand...

I would hope it would hold up as it should be designed to handle the A7Riv, hmm, that would be interesting to see.

But ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter as I'm using it on an A9, so it only needs to be good on that! lol
 
gman said:
I would hope it would hold up as it should be designed to handle the A7Riv, hmm, that would be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

It may and hopefully will but there is only one way to find out for sure.

What you may find with some lenses that they will resolve up to 30-35mp towards the edges and after that there is very little more. Centre normally stays sharp at much higher res. Zooms would typically fall into that category.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It may and hopefully will but there is only one way to find out for sure.

What you may find with some lenses that they will resolve up to 30-35mp towards the edges and after that there is very little more. Centre normally stays sharp at much higher res. Zooms would typically fall into that category.
Click to expand...

Maybe but that shot from the 5ds you sent with the 70-200 F4 was actually bob on all over to the extent I am very seriously considering selling all the Nikon FF gear and getting the 5dsr and the 100-400 L for extreme length shooting. Dynamic range is the hold up here - not the lens.

The 16-35 wasn't that great but again if you composed around cropping to a 4:3 aspect ratio or even 7:5 you could use that lens on that camera fine.

I'd hope the latest greatest G master 2.8 mega bucks zooms would hold all all over on the 61mp camera system.
 
Last edited:
Ah well that was interesting, who'd have thought the GFX100 was a brick because the buttons weren't in the same place as a Canon!
Not to mention only one mounting hole makes the extra 51MP not worth it.
I'm happy with my 32-64 but I'm not the biggest pixel peeper, maybe mine is a fake as it doesn't have F6 that Steve and LLP are on about.
HeyHo :)
 
Last edited:
AJR SIMPSON said:
Ah well that was interesting, who'd have thought the GFX100 was a brick because the buttons weren't in the same place as a Canon!
Not to mention only one mounting hole makes the extra 51MP not worth it.
I'm happy with my 32-64 but I'm not the biggest pixel peeper, maybe mine is a fake as it doesn't have F6 that Steve and LLP are on about.
HeyHo :)
Click to expand...

EXIF from DXO suggests F6.4 - which is interesting as the 1/3rd stop after F5.6 is F6.3, 2/3rd stop F7.1 next stop F8.

What is undisputed is the file is an absolute disgrace. I hope your copy is not like this.
 
SFTPhotography said:
What is undisputed is the file is an absolute disgrace. I hope your copy is not like this.
Click to expand...

Let's say the rental lens was kicked up and down the road except it was essentially spotless. You can never know what happened to it or if they reserved a lemon copy for this service when they couldn't sell it... It sounds perfectly logical.

So that to me defeats the purpose of renting something to test out. I would buy neither body nor lens. 23mm was fine but not without body.

AJR SIMPSON said:
Ah well that was interesting, who'd have thought the GFX100 was a brick because the buttons weren't in the same place as a Canon!
Not to mention only one mounting hole makes the extra 51MP not worth it.
I'm happy with my 32-64 but I'm not the biggest pixel peeper, maybe mine is a fake as it doesn't have F6 that Steve and LLP are on about.
HeyHo :)
Click to expand...

Interesting interpretation but each to their own...

:) I'm sure you will agree GFX 100 is a bit of a brick but obviously not because of only one hole. It weighs like one and looks like one. :p

And I'm sure you would agree that for your money you deserve at least two holes. :) 1 for each £5000. Sounds fair, no? And perhaps another dial on the back... it is a weird camera to handle. But in a way so are 1DX bodies, but a little less so. There are many many reviews saying exactly the same thing. For £10k they could get 10 bloody buttons right.
 
I'd say the 23mm lens was actually very good, I'd have no qualms using that lens on that body, or the S version which is £5k less which will buy you a 23 and maybe a 30mm, or the 45. For a weekend away in Glencoe this could be nice for you.

The hot pixels, on the 1/25th there are a few but easily cloned, on the 60secs that would drive me up the wall.
 
SFTPhotography said:
The hot pixels, on the 1/25th there are a few but easily cloned, on the 60secs that would drive me up the wall.
Click to expand...

I had to look up dust and scratches filter in photoshop. That must have been from the film era.

shop.photo4me.com

Clifton Bridge Reflections At Night, Bristol Framed Pictures for living room | Framed Wall pictures of Clifton Bridge Reflections At Night, Bristol

Clifton Bridge Reflections At Night, Bristol Framed Picture for living room. Clifton suspension bridge is the most famous landmark in Bristol. The Brunel lock in Hotwells provides a stunning vantage point of the magnificent structure. The view of the illuminated bridge against the deep blue sky...
shop.photo4me.com shop.photo4me.com

That is essentially all I managed yesterday. Corners somewhat improved with Sharpen Ai, masked dust filter. It should be decent enough to print at least as well as 5D3 with 24-70 II would have produced :LOL:
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
Some have aged well some not so, overall the description old is more accurate
Click to expand...
The 28-45 and 90 are not old and are new designs for the digital era. They are exceptional.

The others are older and actually designed for a film that is larger than the 44x33 "crop" medium format sensor that the 645z/d use which is the same size of that in the Fuji system. Softer sides don't enter the equation as the sensor crops off the sides of the much larger image circle they project.

Still with me.

Good. This would in theory open the door for Pentax to offer the superior 150mp sensor that sees life in the vastly more expensive phase one true medium format system-with a lens eco system to buy into.

Furthermore - the 645z is a DSLR which is preferable to some but not others, and if you're comfortable buying used there's a healthy supply of used lens for the price of 3 tanks of petrol (you still have the Audi) which overall makes it an economically more attractive proposition.

My experiences of the 45-85mm and 80-160 is that they are old, but high quality lenses that work well on the camera. The 200 prime is also good but doesn't have its DXO lens profile so sharpening is a little more work
 
150 gallery, those are some big files but the quality is superb, although a fair amount of CA?

www.dpreview.com

Phase One IQ4 sample gallery

It's not every day that we get to shoot with a system like the medium-format IQ4. We took it into the studio for some portraiture as well as a more casual spin around the block because, well, why not?
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
Last edited:
gman said:
150 gallery, those are some big files but the quality is superb, although a fair amount of CA?

www.dpreview.com

Phase One IQ4 sample gallery

It's not every day that we get to shoot with a system like the medium-format IQ4. We took it into the studio for some portraiture as well as a more casual spin around the block because, well, why not?
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...

CA is easily fixed in post though.

Money no object I absolutely would shoot Phase One or Hasselblad. They're both very good.

Edit - I REALLY want a Phase one now. Just alas beyond my price point unless the crypto really surges.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
The others are older and actually designed for a film that is larger than the 44x33 "crop" medium format sensor that the 645z/d use which is the same size of that in the Fuji system. Softer sides don't enter the equation as the sensor crops off the sides of the much larger image circle they project.

This would in theory open the door for Pentax to offer the superior 150mp sensor that sees life in the vastly more expensive phase one true medium format system-with a lens eco system to buy
Click to expand...

it’s not just the sides you need to worry about, very high resolution sensors require quality optics with a high line-pair figure - hence why Canon updated a number of lenses when they released the 5DS and 5DSR and part of the reason why the latest high spec FF lenses cost so much.

I doubt whether older Pentax designs were ever envisaged to work with high MP digital sensors and 150MP would really be pushing/testing them, yes they might exhibit similar sharpness across the FOV, but I wouldn’t expect them to resolve a 150MP image meaning that your money on the sensor would be wasted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top