Kudos to the creator of this video for making the full-resolution files available for download. Examining images at large magnification is the only way to to see differences between two extremely capable cameras.
Long time A7RIV user and now using Fujifilm X and GFX. The key advantages of GFX are: 1. The ability to push shadows a huge amount with hardly any cost in terms of noise. The Sony files just don't compare in that respect. 2. Overall, better noise control and what noise there is just somehow looks nicer. That's true for X mount cameras too. This is, of course, subjective. 3. Colour and photometry just pretty much always seem to be 'right' (for me at least) in the camera. I just spend much less time editing to get the colours right. That's especially true when you have to depend on auto white balance in low light or under venue lighting - at a busy event for example, when you don't have time to make manual adjustments. I rarely need to correct my Fujifilm files, whereas my Sony files so often need correction.
I had a chance to try the fuji & also have the a7r5. Certainly the fuji offers more on its hardware but the sony has a better eco system of lenses. Hence for me the sony r5 is the sweet spot - in terms of size - lens versatility & price.
I think you nailed it. When I read reviews comparing APSC to Full Frame, the same benefits they list for Full Frame are present when comparing Full Frame to Medium Format. But in the second case they are down played as not important. Now in the past the implementation of MF had many more warts or compromises as far as bodies, sensors, lenses and processing.
I shoot landscapes with an A7RIV and Tamron zoom lenses. I am happy with the results. I had a chance to shoot my camera at a friend's wedding with a Sigma 85 f1.4. That lens gave me more detail than my Tamron lenses. The results were closer to your medium format shots. We all know lenses make a big difference too but there is no denying that GFX 100 II has more to offer. I would love to do a side-by-side to see if the differences are worth spending 2X or 2.5X more money for the same lens line up. BTW, I print big canvas prints for my final presentation. A single file A7RIV looks good to great at 54"x81" size.
It's great to see another GFX 100 II user making content, I am definitely shocked that you weren't able to retain more highlights with the 100 II. I'm a fashion photographer and videographer, and to me this camera has become the ultimate hybrid camera. And as far as video goes, there is zero competition between the sony and the fuji - the 100 II is an absolute dynamic range monster. I posted a fashion campaign video I shot with it on my channel, feel free to have a look what it's capable of
Sony makes the IMX461 sensor in that camera FYI. It lists its dynamic range at 14 stops. The Sony A7Rv is 15 stops. The most popular camera in Hollywood (Arri Mini) is 14 stops. The human eye is around 18 stops (give/take based upon age). If you see a big difference between the Sony and Fuji apart from detail/resolution in images (noted above), it's confirmation bias and your mind is playing tricks on you.
@@johnny.b.goode1that might be true but also I believe f-log 2 is a much better log profile than slog from what I see. It always comes down to personal preference but I always lean towards Fuji 🤷🏻♂️
The point of this comparison if for those shopping around to see what camera best suits their needs. Does one need 100 megapixels or 61 ? Is the Fuji worth 4 thousand more when it can produce similar results . I have the Sony a7r5 and the Fuji gfx 50sii and although I love the Fuji colors straight out of camera you can do the same with a little work in post on the Sony . Anyways loved the comparison review for those of us out here that can understand both eco systems and for those that are having a hard time decideing between one or the other . Thanks 🙏🏻
You are wrong on compression. Compression is just perspective, and perspective is only dependant on your position. Not on the format you are shooting on
That's a bit pedantic. If at a given distance you need to swap for a wider lens in order to match, de facto affecting the perspective, then his point is valid. That argument was often made for MFT to Full Frame, and as a shooter of both, I get it: in a perfect case scenario where you have all focal lenghs and all the space to position yourself to your subject: sure. But in reality?
@@AlexandrePRODHOMME It's not pedantic. There are plenty of 40mm lenses available in E-mount. Also, he didn't attribute the difference in perspective to the equivalent focal lengths chosen, he attributed them to the formats. Which is just wrong. The same equivalent focal length, will always have the same FoV, the same perspective and the same compression. You cannot change perspective by changing formats.
@@MegaWeitzel And yet, he can position himself relative to this girl only by being a certain distance, at 55mm. This is why I find it (only a bit) pedantic, I think the audience interested in a GFX system for $10000 knows that. So does the TH-camr since he HAD to change lenses. If you have to switch to a 40mm on the sony, it is NOT the same photo. At a smaller format, you might be so telephoto that you might need to switch to 25 or less... What if it's the end of the platform or if you have someone right behind you? There is a reason why cinematographer usually loves large format camera, being able to use longer focal lengh in tight spot is usually very very high on their list.
@@AlexandrePRODHOMME it will be exactly the same photo. That is the point of equivalency. Same focal length, DoF, perspective, distortion, compression, etc... You seem to fundamentally misunderstand perspective
@@MegaWeitzel There seems to be a lot of confusion around regarding this matter. Let me say I am by no means an expert and I could be wrong. I know compression is how the background appears in respect to the foreground in a picture. Therefore telephoto lenses will make the background larger and compressed closer to the photographed subject (and vice versa). The way I understand what Alex says is the following: when you shoot with medium format with let’s say 110 mm lens this means you get the equivalent field of view of 85 mm lens in terms of full frame, correct? At the same time, being a 110 mm lens you will still get the compression of 110 mm lens in terms of full frame. Thus you will get a photo which will have the field of view of 85 mm full frame, but the compression of 110 mm full frame lens. Essentially meaning the background in this said picture taken with 110 mm lens will appear closer and bigger in respect to the foreground in comparison with a 85 mm lens. Is this not correct?
best comparison would be a 50mm F1.2 on Sony and 80 1.7 on GFX. And then you crop the 2:3 ratio Sony image to get 4:3 and essentially getting the 80mm 1.7 Medium format FOv (65mm ff).
Full frame has a 3:2 ratio sensor, not 16:9. You can shoot 16:9 cropped, which is common for modern television screens. I understand that young people make mistakes, but this was not live, and you could have double-checked and corrected your error. Unfortunately, this error tainted everything you compared throughout the rest of your video. No scorn, just advice for the future. Measure twice, cut once ;-)
I enjoyed the video and absolutely love the compression and skin tones from the Fuji. I own the Sony A7R5 and can whole heartily appreciate the difference, I have had amazing results with the Sony and all my customers love the portraits but you got me thinking, wow no kidding Fuji is beautiful. Oh no mention of file sizes, they must be huge and many would need a computer upgrade!
The 4.3 format is no disadvantage but i big big advantage. It looks much better and its much more versatile with croping. Try to crop out an 4.5 instagram pic of a 3.2 pic, not much resolution is left afterwards.
This is a great point. I shoot both 645 film (4:3 ratio) and Sony full-frame. I set my Sony to shoot in 4:3 for a few reasons. First, the Sony still records the full 3:2 image, so I can recompose in post. Second, and most important, the 4:3 ratio is much closer to 5x7 and 8x10 than 3:2 is. So, with minimal crop, my customers can print in the most common print sizes.
Hi Alex! Thanks for the useful comparision. For me it is obvious that the advantages of the Fuji is worthless without the ecosystem of the Sony, hence the decision is a nobrainer. Also, looking at your raw images, I am afraid they are not really showing the IQ capability of these systems as they do not seem pin sharp to me. I mean they are useable shots, but simply not as sharp as the A7R5+50/1.2GM can be and I guess this also applies to the shots taken by the Fuji GFX system (which I have never tried yet). The resolution race would be mostly irrelevant when shooting portraits unless you are aiming at producing gigantic poster prints. Even my APS-C portraits I am blaimed to show "too much details". The dynamic range and color reproduction difference could however, be a game changer for some, but unfortunately you did not get to these aspects in your video. Maybe this can be a subject of your next video.
There is no doubt that the large format with more megapixels in the Fuji 100 GFX II gives better image quality than the Sony A7RV, but do you absolutely need that little extra detail in the images !? Remember that the Fuji is a much bigger and heavier camera to carry around and for Sony you have a ton of Lenses to choose from ! Also remember that the Sony A 7RIV is cheap now new and lots of used, plus the Fuji GFX 100 S is cheap new with many used.
It was close, but if you know how each company handles magenta in their sensors it was very easy to notice a trend. Excellent set of images from both cameras either way. Also I did notice the perspective changing and the subject size changing. Was nice to see this comparison. With GFX prices coming down in the used market I'm contemplating a 100S one day just to see what I can do with it.
I use the GFX because it is more fun. All cameras are since years overpowered for the most people and situations. We look at the same pictures with equal quality like in the early 2010.
Try Sony A7Rv vs Hasselblad X2D 100c... You will see much difference between two.. Especially natural color and DR.. Anyway thanks.. I am in Miami too..
How does low light high ISO noise compare, after the GFX image is downsampled to A7R5 resolution? Which gives a cleaner and sharper image after noise removal?
After Lightroom’s AI noise removal the GFX is really really good at ISO 6400. The Sony is also great but the added detail of the GFX does give it an advantage.
Hi, and thank you for this interesting comparison. For me it is also an important part to compare the autofocus capabilities of different cameras and lenses. This catched my attention much quicker than anything else: If you look into the eyes of this beautiful women in the first image-comparison, you can see in the fuji file, that her left eye - which is closer to the lens - is not as sharp as the right eye. Did you use the lense in manual mode? I ask about this because I hear rumors, that the fuji medium format system does fail on the autofocus more often than the sony full frame system. What is your experience?
If a camera takes great photos with excellent resolution and good color pay off would that same camera translate over into better video quality? I’m wondering how they differ from each other. Is a camera that produces excellent images going to capture videos just as good? Thank you!
Gotta give it to the GM 50mm f1,2 it has smoother bokeh than a medium format. Thats amazing. Thats the thing about full frame and lenses like GM, they can make really fast apertures in more compact lenses that perform better than medium format. You have poor choice of lenses when it comes down to medium format.
every time I see pictures made with the GFX 100 I don't like that from the 61 mp full frame sensor anymore;-) - the smaller camera is only used when I am too lazy to walk around with that bulky mf stuff;-)
i don t understan the point of the comparison. Firstly you crop and edit the images so you change the dynamic range, giving a ''disadvantage''. You decreased the dynamic range... the whole point of a medium format camera. Then i saw you set iso 80. Why? Sony's 80 iso has smaller dynamic range than iso 100, but this is not a thing for gfx 100ii. You also use different lenses, sth that can give different details.
If you do the math full frame offers better low light capabilities. The 35mm equivalent crop factor of the GFX 55mm lens is f1.34 which isn't better than the GM f1.2. Same goes to all other GFX lenses.
The compression thing is wrong. Compression is purely based on distance to the subject. Sensor size has absolutely no influence on it. The gfx lens looks exactly the same as a 44mm would look on the sony (bar the 4/3 crop). Low light is also worse on the GFX. That, as well as bokeh, depends on equivalent aperture. The 55 1.7 is the fastest lens on gfx, while FF has plenty of 1.2 lenses. The major advantages are DR and resolution, that's it.
Alex, thanks a lot for providing the RAW files for comparison. I just downloaded them into Capture One. I do the comparison slightly different. I start with the standard linear ICC profile for both cameras and just compare the sharpness of the two pictures. The problem starts already here, where there are some pictures out of focus. Sometimes it's SONY and sometimes it's GFX. Here DSC02246.arw is in focus, DSCF0257.raf is out of focus. And here DSCF0276.raf is in focus and DSC02265.arw is out of focus. The focus mask in C1 is all over the place. This makes a comparison very difficult. Color matching without a gray card or color reference card makes color matching also more difficult.
Now I’m even more confused argh! I always thought I was going to get the Sony but now I like the Fujifilm as well, it will be a once in a lifetime purchase for me, now I’m even more confused
I feel like some different image styles would have aided the comparison, seeing multiple portrait shots with bokeh isnt super comparitive. Some tests of landscapes, some still life, some night shots etc would have been good to mix it up. Once ive seen one bokeh portrait i've seen them all really.
Has anybody seen any actual comparison on low light performance of Sony A7RV and GFX100ii? It could well be that A7RV at f/1.2 has better low light performance than GFX100ii at f/1.7. If so the low light argument here would also not be correct. Generally Sony have much faster lenses at "equivalent filed of view" as Fuji, and MF give similar depth of field at these smaller apertures as FF do on this bigger, so ought to be correct to compare in this way.
MF is judged differently because the advantages are meaningless for the vast majority of enthusiasts. The same can't be said when comparing APS to FF. You don't discuss the diffraction challenges with MF here but it exists. Good vid overall.
if you’ve never shot digital medium format you really can’t have an opinion lol. also most gfx users at least use gf lenses. at local photography meetups there’s maybe 1-2 sony shooters even using sony glass lol.
Excellent video, Alex. I'm also shooting both systems and can 100% agree with what you are describing. And I absolutely like the calm and fact oriented way you are describing the differences without firing the sometime "religious wars! that are fought.
You don’t zoom in enough to see on small screens or iPads. So it’s dumb. Just zoom right in and show the micro difference , pixel peeping not half zooming , waste of time
Sony HAFE 11.7OF Dynamic Range Fujifilm 12 bit Dynamic Range This can not be seen !! File Director Yes BLIN in the background between Ful Frame and Melemformat Yes on Phase One (Danish Company) but not on Fuji's large format on Melle format film you can see it too small. Nice that you gather but it should be together size 100MB 60MB try to Samlin 24MB and 60MB then you see the same difference and you do not call it a flour format. SAME 100MB and BIGH SENSOR WILL GET MORE LIGHT. 100MB and 200MB will give eg bleeding transition in skin tones along with 24MB and 60 MB there will be differences There is a prayer faver on Fuji's new 100SII than the old Fuji 100s. I myself have had the honor of photographing with the new Fujifilm GFX 100SII and have the Samliner it with Sony A7riii on a good screen. My opinion! Has worked with intermediate format and large format Sinar P for many years on Eizo screen and Benq. This is googel translated
This is why I purchased a Phase One IQ280 over the GFX 100 ii. The GFX is too close to the results you get from shooting a Sony 35mm high resolution sensor like the a1 & a7RIV, which I already own.
Hi Alex! Great video and comparison! You are one of the few photography content creators who manages to properly explain the differences between medium format/full frame/apsc. There is no mysterious 'special medium format look' that everyone talks about - it is simply as you said it - the medium format lenses have a different compression in the equivalent field of view of full frame and that naturally creates slight changes in the overall look of the photos (more visible in telephoto lenses). It really helps that you compared the highest quality glass for both systems which probably could make it more difficult to recognize for the inexperienced eye. In any case the GM 50 is clearly the faster lens and you should easily tell the photos apart by the smoother bokeh of the Sony. In any case, very helpful and thanks for the RAW files. Will you be buying the GFX 100 II?
But the trouble is that is physically inaccurate. There is no such thing as lens 'compression', the relationship of the background to the subject is dictated by where you as the photographer stands and how you then crop the image. The focal length and sensor size has got nothing to do with it. Try it, stand in the same place and take two images with different focal lengths then crop the wider one to the same framing as the narrower framed one and tell me what 'compression' differences there are? There aren't any. You can verify that by taking two images with the same focal length but walk back to take the second, then crop in on the one taken from further away, magically you get background 'compression'.
@@privatebydesign1808 There seems to be a lot of confusion around regarding this matter. Let me say I am by no means an expert and I could be wrong. I know compression is how the background appears in respect to the foreground in a picture. Therefore telephoto lenses will make the background larger and compressed closer to the photographed subject (and vice versa). The way I understand what Alex says is the following: when you shoot with medium format with let’s say 110 mm lens this means you get the equivalent field of view of 85 mm lens in terms of full frame, correct? At the same time, being a 110 mm lens you will still get the compression of 110 mm lens in terms of full frame. Thus you will get a photo which will have the field of view of 85 mm full frame, but the compression of 110 mm full frame lens. Essentially meaning the background in this said picture taken with 110 mm lens will appear closer and bigger in respect to the foreground in comparison with a 85 mm lens. Is this not correct?
@@dimitarkotsev9234 Please just take your camera and do the two tests I suggested. They prove beyond doubt that ‘compression’ as people who don’t have a photographic education refer to is actually 100% a function of where the photographer stands, ie perspective. It has nothing to do with focal length or sensor size. The reason the phenomena is associated with longer lenses is because people tend to stand further away from their subjects when they use longer lenses. A 100mm lens does not have ‘more compression’ than an 85mm lens, that is just wrong. Please go use your 70-200 on a subject 15 feet away with something in the background. Stay in the same place and shoot at 200 and at 70, crop the 70 shot to the same framing as the 200. There is no difference in ‘compression’
@privatebydesign1808 the difference will be in the amount of detail on the subject being shot like the amount of detail in a face (like the skin pours or the fine grains texture of the skin or the wrinkles or crinkles of the facial muscles or the strands of hair on the eye brows and strands of hair on the head the 200mm will give more detail to that compared to the 70mm) when shot at 70mm vs 200mm when standing in the same spot it's as you said it's not compression I do this sometimes as a wildlife photographer so I know what you're referring to
@@privatebydesign1808the difference will be in the amount of detail on the subject being photographed. Whether it's a head shot or whole body from the fine grains of hair strands to the strings of fabric on clothing when shooting 70mm vs 200mm from the same standing point. As a wildlife photographer that's part of my job to do that take photos from 100mm to 400mm while in the same spot. The only difference can be the perspective as in how much background will be shot with the subject. A 200mm zoom will give you less background but more fine detail on the subject whereas a 70mm will give you more background but not as much fine detail on the subject while standing in the exact same spot. I had to do that numerous times on the field so I know what you're referring to. Cropping a 70mm to the level a 200mm will not produce the same results it will lack the finer details like the strands of hair or strands of fabric on clothes or whiskers on the animal. The maybe the same size when a 70mm is cropped to the perspective of a 200mm but it won't look the same it'll look worse
Fuji's background blur their bokeh sucks they need to work on their auto focusing system more and differentiate the subject being shot from the background. For a camera that costs over $5k id expect better results then this. Those photos from fuji were subpar no better than a (below $1000 camera ) or a point and shoot camera can produce. Those photos were not $5k quality results
4:47 Duh, the Fuji focused on the wrong eye. No wonders you're seeing more detail, because Sony is out of focus there! It's an incorrect comparison. Enjoy my dislike.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดใจ “ต้นหอม ศกุนตลา” หลังโดนพาดพิงธุรกิจที่เคยทำ และผลกระทบทำถูกปลดฟ้าผ่า! | แฉ 24 ต.ค.67 [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vCi5OIqlxaE/mqdefault.jpg)
Kudos to the creator of this video for making the full-resolution files available for download. Examining images at large magnification is the only way to to see differences between two extremely capable cameras.
Long time A7RIV user and now using Fujifilm X and GFX. The key advantages of GFX are:
1. The ability to push shadows a huge amount with hardly any cost in terms of noise. The Sony files just don't compare in that respect.
2. Overall, better noise control and what noise there is just somehow looks nicer. That's true for X mount cameras too. This is, of course, subjective.
3. Colour and photometry just pretty much always seem to be 'right' (for me at least) in the camera. I just spend much less time editing to get the colours right. That's especially true when you have to depend on auto white balance in low light or under venue lighting - at a busy event for example, when you don't have time to make manual adjustments. I rarely need to correct my Fujifilm files, whereas my Sony files so often need correction.
Thanks for the feedback, some say that Fuji is pure marketing, but I don't think that's the case.
Thanks for the extra detail. I'm about to flip.
I had a chance to try the fuji & also have the a7r5. Certainly the fuji offers more on its hardware but the sony has a better eco system of lenses. Hence for me the sony r5 is the sweet spot - in terms of size - lens versatility & price.
I think you nailed it. When I read reviews comparing APSC to Full Frame, the same benefits they list for Full Frame are present when comparing Full Frame to Medium Format. But in the second case they are down played as not important. Now in the past the implementation of MF had many more warts or compromises as far as bodies, sensors, lenses and processing.
i love your calm demeanor. Thanks for not screetching at the camera like many youtubers. Great content. Subbed.
I shoot landscapes with an A7RIV and Tamron zoom lenses. I am happy with the results. I had a chance to shoot my camera at a friend's wedding with a Sigma 85 f1.4. That lens gave me more detail than my Tamron lenses. The results were closer to your medium format shots. We all know lenses make a big difference too but there is no denying that GFX 100 II has more to offer. I would love to do a side-by-side to see if the differences are worth spending 2X or 2.5X more money for the same lens line up. BTW, I print big canvas prints for my final presentation. A single file A7RIV looks good to great at 54"x81" size.
Good unbiased straight to the point review, thankyou 🍻🤠
It's great to see another GFX 100 II user making content, I am definitely shocked that you weren't able to retain more highlights with the 100 II. I'm a fashion photographer and videographer, and to me this camera has become the ultimate hybrid camera. And as far as video goes, there is zero competition between the sony and the fuji - the 100 II is an absolute dynamic range monster.
I posted a fashion campaign video I shot with it on my channel, feel free to have a look what it's capable of
Sony makes the IMX461 sensor in that camera FYI. It lists its dynamic range at 14 stops. The Sony A7Rv is 15 stops. The most popular camera in Hollywood (Arri Mini) is 14 stops. The human eye is around 18 stops (give/take based upon age). If you see a big difference between the Sony and Fuji apart from detail/resolution in images (noted above), it's confirmation bias and your mind is playing tricks on you.
@@johnny.b.goode1that might be true but also I believe f-log 2 is a much better log profile than slog from what I see. It always comes down to personal preference but I always lean towards Fuji 🤷🏻♂️
He edited these to look exactly the same. I dont think he has allowed the full benefits of the fuji to shine here.
The point of this comparison if for those shopping around to see what camera best suits their needs. Does one need 100 megapixels or 61 ? Is the Fuji worth 4 thousand more when it can produce similar results . I have the Sony a7r5 and the Fuji gfx 50sii and although I love the Fuji colors straight out of camera you can do the same with a little work in post on the Sony . Anyways loved the comparison review for those of us out here that can understand both eco systems and for those that are having a hard time decideing between one or the other . Thanks 🙏🏻
You are wrong on compression. Compression is just perspective, and perspective is only dependant on your position. Not on the format you are shooting on
That's a bit pedantic. If at a given distance you need to swap for a wider lens in order to match, de facto affecting the perspective, then his point is valid. That argument was often made for MFT to Full Frame, and as a shooter of both, I get it: in a perfect case scenario where you have all focal lenghs and all the space to position yourself to your subject: sure. But in reality?
@@AlexandrePRODHOMME It's not pedantic. There are plenty of 40mm lenses available in E-mount. Also, he didn't attribute the difference in perspective to the equivalent focal lengths chosen, he attributed them to the formats. Which is just wrong. The same equivalent focal length, will always have the same FoV, the same perspective and the same compression. You cannot change perspective by changing formats.
@@MegaWeitzel And yet, he can position himself relative to this girl only by being a certain distance, at 55mm. This is why I find it (only a bit) pedantic, I think the audience interested in a GFX system for $10000 knows that. So does the TH-camr since he HAD to change lenses. If you have to switch to a 40mm on the sony, it is NOT the same photo. At a smaller format, you might be so telephoto that you might need to switch to 25 or less... What if it's the end of the platform or if you have someone right behind you? There is a reason why cinematographer usually loves large format camera, being able to use longer focal lengh in tight spot is usually very very high on their list.
@@AlexandrePRODHOMME it will be exactly the same photo. That is the point of equivalency. Same focal length, DoF, perspective, distortion, compression, etc... You seem to fundamentally misunderstand perspective
@@MegaWeitzel There seems to be a lot of confusion around regarding this matter. Let me say I am by no means an expert and I could be wrong. I know compression is how the background appears in respect to the foreground in a picture. Therefore telephoto lenses will make the background larger and compressed closer to the photographed subject (and vice versa). The way I understand what Alex says is the following: when you shoot with medium format with let’s say 110 mm lens this means you get the equivalent field of view of 85 mm lens in terms of full frame, correct? At the same time, being a 110 mm lens you will still get the compression of 110 mm lens in terms of full frame. Thus you will get a photo which will have the field of view of 85 mm full frame, but the compression of 110 mm full frame lens. Essentially meaning the background in this said picture taken with 110 mm lens will appear closer and bigger in respect to the foreground in comparison with a 85 mm lens. Is this not correct?
best comparison would be a 50mm F1.2 on Sony and 80 1.7 on GFX. And then you crop the 2:3 ratio Sony image to get 4:3 and essentially getting the 80mm 1.7 Medium format FOv (65mm ff).
Full frame has a 3:2 ratio sensor, not 16:9. You can shoot 16:9 cropped, which is common for modern television screens. I understand that young people make mistakes, but this was not live, and you could have double-checked and corrected your error. Unfortunately, this error tainted everything you compared throughout the rest of your video. No scorn, just advice for the future. Measure twice, cut once ;-)
"Unfortunately, this error tainted everything you compared throughout the rest of your video." - glad I don't have to deal with you.
So basically, for an extra $5k you get slightly more detail when pixel peeping.
I enjoyed the video and absolutely love the compression and skin tones from the Fuji. I own the Sony A7R5 and can whole heartily appreciate the difference, I have had amazing results with the Sony and all my customers love the portraits but you got me thinking, wow no kidding Fuji is beautiful. Oh no mention of file sizes, they must be huge and many would need a computer upgrade!
The 4.3 format is no disadvantage but i big big advantage. It looks much better and its much more versatile with croping. Try to crop out an 4.5 instagram pic of a 3.2 pic, not much resolution is left afterwards.
This is a great point. I shoot both 645 film (4:3 ratio) and Sony full-frame. I set my Sony to shoot in 4:3 for a few reasons. First, the Sony still records the full 3:2 image, so I can recompose in post. Second, and most important, the 4:3 ratio is much closer to 5x7 and 8x10 than 3:2 is. So, with minimal crop, my customers can print in the most common print sizes.
@@Hunterphotographic exactly☺️
I have done this a lot since I do video work as well and some photos just do not crop well in IG's aspect ratio.
Hi Alex! Thanks for the useful comparision. For me it is obvious that the advantages of the Fuji is worthless without the ecosystem of the Sony, hence the decision is a nobrainer. Also, looking at your raw images, I am afraid they are not really showing the IQ capability of these systems as they do not seem pin sharp to me. I mean they are useable shots, but simply not as sharp as the A7R5+50/1.2GM can be and I guess this also applies to the shots taken by the Fuji GFX system (which I have never tried yet). The resolution race would be mostly irrelevant when shooting portraits unless you are aiming at producing gigantic poster prints. Even my APS-C portraits I am blaimed to show "too much details". The dynamic range and color reproduction difference could however, be a game changer for some, but unfortunately you did not get to these aspects in your video. Maybe this can be a subject of your next video.
There is no doubt that the large format with more megapixels in the Fuji 100 GFX II gives better image quality than the Sony A7RV, but do you absolutely need that little extra detail in the images !? Remember that the Fuji is a much bigger and heavier camera to carry around and for Sony you have a ton of Lenses to choose from ! Also remember that the Sony A 7RIV is cheap now new and lots of used, plus the Fuji GFX 100 S is cheap new with many used.
Powerful video, I needed to watch this today, thank you Alex
dude, you benchpress engine blocks?
In my opinion, a comparison between lenses with equilvent focal length such as 50mm on FF and 80mm on MF would have made for a better comparison.
It was close, but if you know how each company handles magenta in their sensors it was very easy to notice a trend. Excellent set of images from both cameras either way. Also I did notice the perspective changing and the subject size changing. Was nice to see this comparison. With GFX prices coming down in the used market I'm contemplating a 100S one day just to see what I can do with it.
How did you match the colours so well? 😮 The are a small difference in the green but well done
I use the GFX because it is more fun. All cameras are since years overpowered for the most people and situations. We look at the same pictures with equal quality like in the early 2010.
Medium format for landscape with maximum dynamic range? But at issue is display format. MF is overkill unless gallery printing.
Try Sony A7Rv vs Hasselblad X2D 100c... You will see much difference between two.. Especially natural color and DR.. Anyway thanks.. I am in Miami too..
GFX 100 is for sure heavy. I means, look at this man biceps!!
Your bicep game is strong!
Hi Alex very interesting video and very good idea to give the possibility to download the files! Thanks!
How does it compare to the iPhone 15 pro max 5X lens?
I mean that’s the best of the best 🤣
The iPhone 15 PM just has a 12MP sensor for that 5x so it's not even close when it comes to detail.
@@fr3238 Haha I’m just joking.
Its not even the best 5x on mobile
Let alone compared to medium format
How does low light high ISO noise compare, after the GFX image is downsampled to A7R5 resolution?
Which gives a cleaner and sharper image after noise removal?
After Lightroom’s AI noise removal the GFX is really really good at ISO 6400. The Sony is also great but the added detail of the GFX does give it an advantage.
is there a weatherproof medium format that can also do videography? I am thinking of documenting travels in the outdoors on a trike.
For me the major benefit of the medium format is the more organic look to the files...the rich tonal gradation and not so much the resolution.
Post proof. The bit depth and therefore color space is ample for either system (aren't they both Sony sensors).
@@sandb1867Oh God stop being insufferable
Hi, and thank you for this interesting comparison. For me it is also an important part to compare the autofocus capabilities of different cameras and lenses. This catched my attention much quicker than anything else: If you look into the eyes of this beautiful women in the first image-comparison, you can see in the fuji file, that her left eye - which is closer to the lens - is not as sharp as the right eye. Did you use the lense in manual mode? I ask about this because I hear rumors, that the fuji medium format system does fail on the autofocus more often than the sony full frame system. What is your experience?
There is still a lot of room for improvement with Fuji in general. For the best eye AF Sony is the way to go.
If a camera takes great photos with excellent resolution and good color pay off would that same camera translate over into better video quality? I’m wondering how they differ from each other. Is a camera that produces excellent images going to capture videos just as good? Thank you!
Gotta give it to the GM 50mm f1,2 it has smoother bokeh than a medium format. Thats amazing. Thats the thing about full frame and lenses like GM, they can make really fast apertures in more compact lenses that perform better than medium format. You have poor choice of lenses when it comes down to medium format.
every time I see pictures made with the GFX 100 I don't like that from the 61 mp full frame sensor anymore;-) - the smaller camera is only used when I am too lazy to walk around with that bulky mf stuff;-)
i don t understan the point of the comparison. Firstly you crop and edit the images so you change the dynamic range, giving a ''disadvantage''. You decreased the dynamic range... the whole point of a medium format camera. Then i saw you set iso 80. Why? Sony's 80 iso has smaller dynamic range than iso 100, but this is not a thing for gfx 100ii. You also use different lenses, sth that can give different details.
If you do the math full frame offers better low light capabilities. The 35mm equivalent crop factor of the GFX 55mm lens is f1.34 which isn't better than the GM f1.2. Same goes to all other GFX lenses.
The compression thing is wrong. Compression is purely based on distance to the subject. Sensor size has absolutely no influence on it. The gfx lens looks exactly the same as a 44mm would look on the sony (bar the 4/3 crop). Low light is also worse on the GFX. That, as well as bokeh, depends on equivalent aperture. The 55 1.7 is the fastest lens on gfx, while FF has plenty of 1.2 lenses. The major advantages are DR and resolution, that's it.
I knew in the first shot which one was the gfx.
Hi Alex your video really helps! Please keep doing!
Alex, thanks a lot for providing the RAW files for comparison. I just downloaded them into Capture One. I do the comparison slightly different. I start with the standard linear ICC profile for both cameras and just compare the sharpness of the two pictures. The problem starts already here, where there are some pictures out of focus. Sometimes it's SONY and sometimes it's GFX. Here DSC02246.arw is in focus, DSCF0257.raf is out of focus. And here DSCF0276.raf is in focus and DSC02265.arw is out of focus. The focus mask in C1 is all over the place. This makes a comparison very difficult. Color matching without a gray card or color reference card makes color matching also more difficult.
Also medium format doesn't have better low light as it lacks fast lenses
Arent the 55mm and the 80mm are 1.7, which in FF is something around 1.3?
Now I’m even more confused argh!
I always thought I was going to get the Sony but now I like the Fujifilm as well, it will be a once in a lifetime purchase for me, now I’m even more confused
Had you matched equivalent focal lengths the comparison would be more informative.
I feel like some different image styles would have aided the comparison, seeing multiple portrait shots with bokeh isnt super comparitive. Some tests of landscapes, some still life, some night shots etc would have been good to mix it up. Once ive seen one bokeh portrait i've seen them all really.
Has anybody seen any actual comparison on low light performance of Sony A7RV and GFX100ii? It could well be that A7RV at f/1.2 has better low light performance than GFX100ii at f/1.7. If so the low light argument here would also not be correct. Generally Sony have much faster lenses at "equivalent filed of view" as Fuji, and MF give similar depth of field at these smaller apertures as FF do on this bigger, so ought to be correct to compare in this way.
nice arms bro💪
GFX IQ and flexibility are really on an another level
Good review!
At this point, i feel like GF lenses can't keep up with GFX100ii autofocus.
Skin tones on the Sony are shifting toward yellow/green.
MF is judged differently because the advantages are meaningless for the vast majority of enthusiasts. The same can't be said when comparing APS to FF. You don't discuss the diffraction challenges with MF here but it exists. Good vid overall.
this video should watch every Fuji gfx fan before buying it !
Love my GFX, fuji kills sony color in my opinion. More true to life
if you’ve never shot digital medium format you really can’t have an opinion lol. also most gfx users at least use gf lenses. at local photography meetups there’s maybe 1-2 sony shooters even using sony glass lol.
In terms of photo IQ on sunlight Hasselblad h4d50 from 2009 beats them both. Dramatically.
very helpful, thank you.
A Sony Sensor Vs. a Sony Sensor. 😂
Great video Alex! I prefer the Sony photos 🙂
Excellent video, Alex. I'm also shooting both systems and can 100% agree with what you are describing. And I absolutely like the calm and fact oriented way you are describing the differences without firing the sometime "religious wars! that are fought.
tight short makes looking uncomfortable.. let loose maaan
You don’t zoom in enough to see on small screens or iPads. So it’s dumb. Just zoom right in and show the micro difference , pixel peeping not half zooming , waste of time
Sony HAFE 11.7OF Dynamic Range Fujifilm 12 bit Dynamic Range This can not be seen !!
File Director Yes BLIN in the background between Ful Frame and Melemformat Yes on Phase One (Danish Company) but not on Fuji's large format on Melle format film you can see it too small.
Nice that you gather but it should be together size 100MB 60MB try to Samlin 24MB and 60MB then you see the same difference and you do not call it a flour format. SAME 100MB and BIGH SENSOR WILL GET MORE LIGHT. 100MB and 200MB will give eg bleeding transition in skin tones along with 24MB and 60 MB there will be differences
There is a prayer faver on Fuji's new 100SII than the old Fuji 100s. I myself have had the honor of photographing with the new Fujifilm GFX 100SII and have the Samliner it with Sony A7riii on a good screen.
My opinion!
Has worked with intermediate format and large format Sinar P for many years on Eizo screen and Benq.
This is googel translated
This is why I purchased a Phase One IQ280 over the GFX 100 ii. The GFX is too close to the results you get from shooting a Sony 35mm high resolution sensor like the a1 & a7RIV, which I already own.
Hi Alex! Great video and comparison! You are one of the few photography content creators who manages to properly explain the differences between medium format/full frame/apsc. There is no mysterious 'special medium format look' that everyone talks about - it is simply as you said it - the medium format lenses have a different compression in the equivalent field of view of full frame and that naturally creates slight changes in the overall look of the photos (more visible in telephoto lenses). It really helps that you compared the highest quality glass for both systems which probably could make it more difficult to recognize for the inexperienced eye. In any case the GM 50 is clearly the faster lens and you should easily tell the photos apart by the smoother bokeh of the Sony. In any case, very helpful and thanks for the RAW files. Will you be buying the GFX 100 II?
But the trouble is that is physically inaccurate. There is no such thing as lens 'compression', the relationship of the background to the subject is dictated by where you as the photographer stands and how you then crop the image. The focal length and sensor size has got nothing to do with it. Try it, stand in the same place and take two images with different focal lengths then crop the wider one to the same framing as the narrower framed one and tell me what 'compression' differences there are? There aren't any. You can verify that by taking two images with the same focal length but walk back to take the second, then crop in on the one taken from further away, magically you get background 'compression'.
@@privatebydesign1808 There seems to be a lot of confusion around regarding this matter. Let me say I am by no means an expert and I could be wrong. I know compression is how the background appears in respect to the foreground in a picture. Therefore telephoto lenses will make the background larger and compressed closer to the photographed subject (and vice versa). The way I understand what Alex says is the following: when you shoot with medium format with let’s say 110 mm lens this means you get the equivalent field of view of 85 mm lens in terms of full frame, correct? At the same time, being a 110 mm lens you will still get the compression of 110 mm lens in terms of full frame. Thus you will get a photo which will have the field of view of 85 mm full frame, but the compression of 110 mm full frame lens. Essentially meaning the background in this said picture taken with 110 mm lens will appear closer and bigger in respect to the foreground in comparison with a 85 mm lens. Is this not correct?
@@dimitarkotsev9234 Please just take your camera and do the two tests I suggested. They prove beyond doubt that ‘compression’ as people who don’t have a photographic education refer to is actually 100% a function of where the photographer stands, ie perspective. It has nothing to do with focal length or sensor size. The reason the phenomena is associated with longer lenses is because people tend to stand further away from their subjects when they use longer lenses. A 100mm lens does not have ‘more compression’ than an 85mm lens, that is just wrong.
Please go use your 70-200 on a subject 15 feet away with something in the background. Stay in the same place and shoot at 200 and at 70, crop the 70 shot to the same framing as the 200. There is no difference in ‘compression’
@privatebydesign1808 the difference will be in the amount of detail on the subject being shot like the amount of detail in a face (like the skin pours or the fine grains texture of the skin or the wrinkles or crinkles of the facial muscles or the strands of hair on the eye brows and strands of hair on the head the 200mm will give more detail to that compared to the 70mm) when shot at 70mm vs 200mm when standing in the same spot it's as you said it's not compression I do this sometimes as a wildlife photographer so I know what you're referring to
@@privatebydesign1808the difference will be in the amount of detail on the subject being photographed. Whether it's a head shot or whole body from the fine grains of hair strands to the strings of fabric on clothing when shooting 70mm vs 200mm from the same standing point. As a wildlife photographer that's part of my job to do that take photos from 100mm to 400mm while in the same spot. The only difference can be the perspective as in how much background will be shot with the subject. A 200mm zoom will give you less background but more fine detail on the subject whereas a 70mm will give you more background but not as much fine detail on the subject while standing in the exact same spot. I had to do that numerous times on the field so I know what you're referring to. Cropping a 70mm to the level a 200mm will not produce the same results it will lack the finer details like the strands of hair or strands of fabric on clothes or whiskers on the animal. The maybe the same size when a 70mm is cropped to the perspective of a 200mm but it won't look the same it'll look worse
сразу заметил разницу и правильно определил камеры
Another awesome video
This guns 💪🏻
Fuji's background blur their bokeh sucks they need to work on their auto focusing system more and differentiate the subject being shot from the background. For a camera that costs over $5k id expect better results then this. Those photos from fuji were subpar no better than a (below $1000 camera ) or a point and shoot camera can produce. Those photos were not $5k quality results
#sony open gate please 4:3 ratio
Bruh full frame is 3:2 format ratio which is also squarish
The aspect ratio gave it away, unfortunately.
Haha, using a 50mm F1.2 at 1.2 and talking about missing detail in skin texture…
Sony guys with the elephant in the room...lol Sony never ever compare these two cameras
Medium format will kill off full frame in another 5 years
4:47
Duh, the Fuji focused on the wrong eye. No wonders you're seeing more detail, because Sony is out of focus there! It's an incorrect comparison. Enjoy my dislike.
*Sony rules.*
Damn Alex, you are so handsome. You should be in front of the camera not behind it!
100MP is more detailed than 60MP. Who knew?!!!!