The Fuji GFX100 and its ilk...

[George Mann]

Well, we have finally reached the 100+ megapixel range in a small format digital camera.

But what is it really capable of? From what I have seen, I still prefer the true-to-life performance of my 35mm slides.

What is the best way to see what this latest generation of camera is capable of?

 

[markjwyatt]

Flickr has a few images too look at. These two in particular seem to have full resolution (or very close) uploads. Pretty sharp and high resolution.

https://flic.kr/p/2i6XL2A

https://flic.kr/p/2i65PgN

 

[George Mann]

Thanks, but only the model is in focus. I need some scenes of the real world (preferably daylight).

But also, viewing images on any type of screen (mine is 4k) is not going to be the best way to show a cameras full potential.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Well then it seems your option is take it for a test drive and see its full potential with your own eyes.

It's an interesting time with this level of camera -- Hasselblad, Fuji, Phase One...as good as "35mm" digital cameras are, these offer a depth and 'look' that surpasses them.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

From the digital photography perspective the Fuji GFX cameras look compelling. 2nd hand prices seem to be coming down as well as the newer bodies enter the market.

 

[markjwyatt]

The GFX50 will probably become affordable at some point (for many professionals with revenue streams, the GFX100 probably already does).

 

[George Mann]

Well then it seems your option is take it for a test drive and see its full potential with your own eyes.

It's an interesting time with this level of camera -- Hasselblad, Fuji, Phase One...as good as "35mm" digital cameras are, these offer a depth and 'look' that surpasses them.

Yes, 44x33 is a bit larger than 24x36. I would have to rent one to have a hands on experience with it.

What is the current SOTA in printing technology these days?

 

[Pieter12]

The larger sensors just seem to have a better look. I just wish the Fuji had an optical viewfinder, I dislike electronic ones.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I just want to use it in pixel shift mode as a scanner. 400 freakin megapixels to play with. That's drum scanner territory...but don't let the drum people start talking about the PMTs, they'll go all day.

In normal print sizes I don't think there is a difference between a 100mp digital file and one created by a 50mp 135 camera. Plus, the faster lenses give you even less DoF than in 44x33. That being said, there is probably a mental slow down that happens with the GFX, which is a good thing. Medium format will do that. I'd shoot with one. I'd shoot with basically anything. But primarily It also needs to be a scanner.

 

[4season]

What is the current SOTA in printing technology these days?

From Canon, it looks like any of the imagePrograf printers. I have a slightly older Pixma Pro-10, and versus the Epson model of the day, Canon was larger, heavier, and didn't handle larger roll-feed paper. But OTOH in the past couple of years, I haven't experienced a single head clog. No special maintenance on my part except to power it up periodically, run a print or two, and ensure that ink carts don't dry out. Versus current models, mine lacks Photo Gray, but to date have noticed no shortcomings at all in the quality of it's output. Downside of more pro-grade printers is higher cost for a full set of inks ($700, in the case of imagePrograf 1000). Yes those are pretty big ink tanks but you need to print a certain volume in order to realize a cost savings per print, as eventually the ink in those tanks will simply dry out regardless of whether you are printing or not.

 

[Chan Tran]

Thanks, but only the model is in focus. I need some scenes of the real world (preferably daylight).

But also, viewing images on any type of screen (mine is 4k) is not going to be the best way to show a cameras full potential.

Why not?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

From Canon, it looks like any of the imagePrograf printers. I have a slightly older Pixma Pro-10, and versus the Epson model of the day, Canon was larger, heavier, and didn't handle larger roll-feed paper. But OTOH in the past couple of years, I haven't experienced a single head clog. No special maintenance on my part except to power it up periodically, run a print or two, and ensure that ink carts don't dry out. Versus current models, mine lacks Photo Gray, but to date have noticed no shortcomings at all in the quality of it's output. Downside of more pro-grade printers is higher cost for a full set of inks ($700, in the case of imagePrograf 1000). Yes those are pretty big ink tanks but you need to print a certain volume in order to realize a cost savings per print, as eventually the ink in those tanks will simply dry out regardless of whether you are printing or not.

I have an Epson, and based on my experience with it my next printer will be a Canon. In fact, I'm a little irritated that I spent the money on the P6000 when the Canon option is clearly a superior design.

 

[George Mann]

Why not?

What type of monitor can show us the full resolution of even half this number of pixels?

 

[Pieter12]

What type of monitor can show us the full resolution of even half this number of pixels?

You could zoom in to see how details are rendered. But the point of high resolution digital images is the ability to crop without losing quality and to make ridiculously large prints. But to the original point of only the model being in focus, you don't have the kind of detail in the photos that might reveal flaws like color distortion along the edges (I know there's a term for it but it doesn't come to mind).

 

[Chan Tran]

What type of monitor can show us the full resolution of even half this number of pixels?

You can simply examine part of the picture at a time. You don't need to see the whole image all at once. But they have 8K monitor now that comes pretty close.

 

[George Mann]

You can simply examine part of the picture at a time.

I do, which reveals that it is clearly an artificial facsimile (doesn't look real, still not impressed).

But they have 8K monitor now that comes pretty close.

8k is less than half of this cameras resolution!

 

[Pieter12]

I do, which reveals that it is clearly an artificial facsimile (doesn't look real, still not impressed).

OK. So a film photograph examined that closely looks real? Examples, please.

 

[George Mann]

OK. So a film photograph examined that closely looks real? Examples, please.

This is certainly the case with slide film. But how much closer will a high end print from the GFX get?

 

[Pieter12]

This is certainly the case with slide film. But how much closer will a high end print from the GFX get?

Really? Examples, please.

 

[George Mann]

Really? Examples, please.

You sound like a robot. Have you ever seen a slide?

 

[mshchem]

I'm always amazed by stuff like this. The pace of change is amazing.

 

[Pieter12]

I have seen thousands and thousands of slides, medium format chromes, 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies, shot by amateurs, artists and high-end, well-respected commercial photographers. I would just like you to present one that you think looks "real" and more "real" than a very high-res digital image.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

What's the matter, Pieter, have you decided there aren't enough flat spots on your head?

 

[George Mann]

I would just like you to present one that you think looks "real" and more "real" than a very high-res digital image.

I have rarely seen one that failed to (do to some defect).

Speaking of high resolution, the GFX100 has a true native resolution of 34 megapixels, which IS close to the resolution of an 8k monitor.

The true resolution of film begins around the equivalent of 78 megapixels.

The resolution of slide film is much higher, while being the most true-to-life photographic medium.

 

[Pieter12]

I have seen many crappy and mediocre slides. And as many piss-poor digital images. That proves nothing beyond lack of the photographer's technical and artistic abilities and sometimes bad equipment. You have still failed to provide evidence of your point.