Had A7rIV and GFX50s. Shot 2 systems side by side for 2 yrs. Then got A1, excellent AF but in the end sold Sony system and went with GFX100s. Mostly shooting portraits with strobes, inside and outside the studio.
Same, but have the 50Sii and now considering the 100Sii. The GFX files are just soooo much nicer to work with that the Sony files. Colour and photometry are almost always spot on and the shadow recovery is remarkable - there's almost no noise penalty when you push the shadows. As an X mount photographer though, including the X-H2S (generally excellent), I've lost faith that Fujifilm will ever make a decent AF system.
@@TheSlantedLens @ 2:25 - I think the same. It'd be useful to show the aperture you used for each shot too, as I think the depth of field may influence things too.
I won't repeat what I said about the GFX 100II in the Z8 video. I am a little surprised with the sharpness test, the GF 63mm f/2.8 is a good lens, though I wouldn't say it is close to being Fujifilms best lens. Where the Fujifilm just becomes a beast is with the 110mm f/2. I have several 85mm, including the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4, and the rendering of the GF110 f/2 is on another level, it is optically great, and the only lens I prefer on my GFX is the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar, which is full frame but basically covers the sensor, for things like headshots, and even then I think the 110mm is technically better. The camera you really should compare the GFX100II to, is the Hasselblad X2D, which has the same sensor, but the Hasselblad is an amazing camera (with better colours than Fujifilm), and a leaf shutter which really helps with flash sync speed. The only downside is the AF with some of the older lenses, but with the recent firmware update, and new lenses, the X2D has really stepped up.
@@inquisitvem6723 if you are into zooms, then 20-35, 32-64, and 45-100 are good. 20-35 and 100-200 are my personal favorites. If you are into primes, the 23mm is really good.
What shallower depth of field are you talking about? The fastest lenses in the GFX system are f/1.7, with a crop factor of 0.79 that equates to full frame f/1.34 in terms of DOF. In theory you'd get shallower DOF with equal lenses, but taking the best of both system, you're not getting an advantage.
Ja but since when is more shallow depth of field an advantage? Potrait shooters shoot at f4-f10 no pro shoots at 1.2 if he wants more than one eye in focus.
@@cy9nvs they exist to make money for canon and co. I am a pro photographer and i dont need it. I shoot at f4-f8 in the studio like most photographers in mY niche. F1.2 is for doing fx shoots but not for real work. No Fashion photographer shoots at f1.2 as well so for whom are those one eye in focus lenses made for?
I initially thought that this comparison test didn't make sense, given the different nature of these 2 cameras. But it would seem that their performance are pretty close overall. For the price and the choice of lenses, I'll stick to my A7RV, thank you very much.
In the same boat. Bought the A7RV as it is nearly MF, an exceptional FF, and the MRAW or Crop performance bests most APS-C offerings out there... Sony's 1st "complete" (semi-affordable) body. To top it off, Sony's colors are finally up there with Nikon and Fuji... which hurts me a bit to say lol.
Thank you for this comparison, loved it just as much as the one with the Nikon Z8. A great source of information away from the usual quite biased reviews where you have to read between the lines. One thing I don’t like about Sony is the type A card, CF type B seems a better option imho.
The advantage of type A is that they can create a slot that will hold wither type A or SD cards. But I do agree that the type B cards are easier to handle because of their size.
FYI - THE Fujifilm is not medium format. It’s smaller than the smallest medium format film which is 645. Fujifilm now calls its GFX series “larger than full frame”.
I'd wager the Fuji GFX uses a Sony made sensor (probably the IMX461), likely the same (or close) tech as the sensor in the a7RV. Pretty sure the pixels are the same size, @ pixel pitch of 3.76 microns (?), If that is true then if the lens was the same, they would get pretty much the same image quality if shot in Raw and processed the same. Obviously, the GFX has the advantage of having a larger sensor with more pixels (higher resolution). That is also likely why the ISO noise is near identical as well. Hopefully Fuji can improve the auto focus performance as it seems Sony wins there.
@@Yupthereitism The Fuji 102MP would be great for people that have the money and want/need that many megapixels, I’d like to have one. For now I’ll shoot panos with my a7RIV to get Higher MP landscape shots. I could see owning a GFX, just don’t want to spend that much money on one right now. Hopefully they get significantly cheaper at some point. Guessing eventually we’ll have a 100mp (or close) full frame Sony. Course, by then the gfx will be even higher MPs.. LOL 🤷♂️
@@cdavey7654 I preferred the a7riv over the gfx100s. There are virtually no differences in the image quality between the two cameras. It’s all marketing baloney that these Fuji cameras are anything special
I have the Sony A7RV and paired with some high quality lenses it's hard to beat it's sharpness. In this comparison the Sony wasn't just slightly sharper, but a lot. The amount of megapixels isn't very useful in most use cases, only for cropping. I wish Fujifilm would release a medium format camera with only let's say 33MP for insane low light capabilities, faster AF, a control wheel and a better screen like the A7RV. Now that would be interesting to me
agree, I don't understand the race for megapixels. I think it should be capped at 100. I have the a7cr and just did a side by side test with an x1dii Hasselblad and 45p lens. I also used the 35mm f1.4 gm lens on the Sony. I shot the same exact shots and it was honestly hard to tell any difference. yes the hasseblad shots had something special to them but you can get the same look on the Sony basically.
@@jharrelphoto yes even when printing it's hard to tell the difference between 12 and 100 megapixels. Some youtuber did this test with a Sony A7SIII and a 100MP Hasselblad. Nobody could really tell which photo was sharper, even large prints.
It's funny when you do the dynamic range test and hover over the eye; the GFX looks sharper than the Sony. I think you missed focus on your first sharpness test. I have tested the Sony 24mm gm on the a7rv with the Fujifilm gfx 100s and the 23mm f4, and the fuji is so much better its miles ahead
Isn't the GFX sensor more or less an upscaled A7RV sensor? So the per pixel noise and DR are not expected to be very different. Also medium format doesn't necessarily have shallower DoF if you don't have sufficiently fast lenses.
I don’t think the initially sharpness test in the beginning of the film held and accurate representation, because throughout the rest of the video through dozens of photos (especially of her nose) the Fuji was much more detailed.
@@Yupthereitism yea I think compared to the Sony it does, but Sony just has this flat milky looking picture and video, all my professional photographer friends carry Fuji and everywhere I look in my industry I see Fuji, albeit Sony photos seem brighter or whatever you call it in most scenarios, but I really like the Fuji color. I’m thinking I have to wait another year before dropping 5-9k on a photography camera hopefully by then Fuji will be more reflective of the Sony brands digital trajectory.
You mean marketing like calling 35mm sensors full frame? Originally its called small picture sensor. It was the smallest format compared to medium and large format.
To quote Wikipedia on Medium Format: "Nowadays, the term applies to film and digital cameras that record images on media larger than the 24 mm × 36 mm used in 35 mm photography, but smaller than 4 in × 5 in."
Could you possibly look at both of these RAW in Camera or preferably Capture One pro? Using bridge zooming at 100% isn’t actually doing JPEG?justice to the images. I’m assuming these JPEG‘s were on the best quality quality of the camera? Is there anyway we can look at Raw files? Doing HDR test with Raws would be better than using the JPEG. I mean what color space are the JPEG in? Your options are Dobe 1998 or sRGB which is got a slightly more compressed range. Also, has anyone done any high ISO testing RAW (not JPEGs) with the image properly exposed at 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,000.
It's mainly a useability review, image quality plays only a minor part. With a Fuji, you will need only little post processing in terms of color, whereas with a Sony camera you'd have to edit a lot to get rid of those color casts. In high ISO tests, I am more interested in rendition of fine details rather than grain in uniform background surfaces.
GFX is still sharp even at 12800 and Sony is very soft. and sony has color shift and banding. stop trying to make everybody happy. GFX100ii is clearly winner
love your videos gfx is something i am very keen on learning. a question for you i have been asked to photograph beer tankards silver with engraving on highly reflective tried the tents you can but just get the seams show as will my front element of the lens ?
Usually you will shoot with a cove behind you and put a white card in front of the camera with a hole or sweep a seamless over the top of the product and cut a hole in the seamless for the camera. Then you will have to edit out the lens reflection.
Jay P @TheSlantedLens ! It's been too long! Thanks for doing this, I own the Sony a7RV but have had my eyes in the GFX100 II. I wish you had mentioned that you can get 12-bit Blackmagic RAW video recording with the GFX100 IIs using the BMD Video Assist monitor/recorders. That's a huge improvement on codec, compression and post flexibility!
That's exactly the point where I thought, "Fuji wins this". Actually dynamic range too. the teeth look a bit blown out on the Sony, but look great on the Fuji
It depends on the type of photography you do. The R5 and the a7RV are pretty hard to beat for overall still photography. One of the reasons is the autofocus.
Have them both, they are very different. For high quality slow portraits and nature GFX is a cleaner winner, any movement (even slow) and telephoto requires Canon
another win for sony no matter how you spin it, both sensors are made by sony. This comparison only proves that the older fujinon lens is inferior in optical quality.
@@TheSlantedLensAppaling you dont choose your fiew words better, even if only to prove 'you care' about feedback. Its all superficial business isnt it.
Most of these tests have no relevance. The only thing that matters is that the Fuji has the better color science and those skin tones look natural, whereas the Sony one looks too yellow
Keep in mind that much depends on your own eyes and monitor calibration and just subjective preferences - plus you can make colors look any way you want.
I can't seem to justify the GFX from the A7rv. Base on this test the GFX should not exists. Why buy the larger sensor of GFX when they are basically the same with image quality. I know about medium format look and the GFX doesn't give the real medium format look from the 645. GFX is trash
The stupid format names 'fullframe" and "medium format" (their history and double-screwed up of maintaining these names), really, you missed the duty (no, not 'oportunity") to remind that their size is really not that much different - in the sens that good fullframe lenses could often over also the current medium format sensors. (Maybe, just maybe, it would requière larger diameter of the lens Bayonet such as Nikon's, maybe), and be better then 'bad' fullframe lenses. So what ever theory might be correct, it also becomes reversible if you pic the right lenses (widest open "but" sharp - if you value little DOF). Then it is "only" is a question of witch camera has the better technology, not the better size between these(!) two. (Sure, my conviction is that the most huge diversity of m-mount lenses is determinating, even if only needing only a few.)
@@TheSlantedLens ..."you missed the duty (no, not the 'oportunity") to remind every one that their sensor size is really not that much different - ..that good fullframe lenses could often cover also the current medium format sensors." It's part of the comercialy biased reporting, to leave out any critical thinking.
Your conclusion is only what you wanted to perpetuate a fallacy legend, under the felse cover of wanting and be able to question objectivally and openly, for us. But You are commercially biased, no matter what. Not science, not critical education, not consumer protection. Just one video more for the sake of a next one.
I am not sure exactly what your point is. But let me be very straightforward with you. We try to bring honest unbiased information about cameras to you. We are not sponsored by any of these camera companies.
What does that even mean" "commercially biased, no matter what"??? - I found this comparison very useful and well thought out. Few people can afford both camera systems, so to see how they perform under some real live situations is super helpful.
I do think Sony looks sharper but it is just one aspect of image quality, the Fujifilm photo has that smoothness and more analogue and natural look in its quality, when you look at the color of the jumper Sony's photo seems to be a bit wash out while the Fujifilm seems to be more natural.
It definitely was sharper, but as you say, it's 100% due to the lens. Interestingly, the Sony image was not only sharper, but also it took up a smaller amount of the image, meaning that GM lens is significantly better than that GFX lens.
Sony paying this guy? The gfx is way sharper than this Sony. The Sony is smaller and cheaper and faster focus. Other than that the gfx smokes it I used both for many years
I don't know how you really feel, but it was very apparent by the way you talked (from the beginning), that you wanted medium format to win. And you seem surprised the Sony kept winning or tying on lots of categories. You also missed that Sony does 8K video. The 800 pound elephant in the the Lens selection. Sony has 76 E mount lenses (25 of which are crop but can be used at 26MP) Fuji has 17 lenses according to Fuji website. Not sure how many third party AF lenses are available for Fuji G mount. There are currently over 155 Third party AF lenses available for the Sony E mount system. you also forgot to tell us how the scoring went. Fuji got 14 green marks, Sony got 17.
@@TheSlantedLens I love your videos, I have learned so much from your Laws of Light series, it just seemed that in this case you really seemed "Slanted to one side" pardon the pun.
Sony colors are so freaking bad. It looks horrible to me. The Fujifilm colors are just the best. It looks totaly natural. I never would buy a sony. Cause the colors are so bad.
Sorry but you Sony boy I think, you and hating GFX system. GFX is winner! I have experience with any system. Sony is other GFX is another world. Sorry thank you
Had A7rIV and GFX50s. Shot 2 systems side by side for 2 yrs. Then got A1, excellent AF but in the end sold Sony system and went with GFX100s. Mostly shooting portraits with strobes, inside and outside the studio.
Great to hear about your experience with the two camera systems.
Same, but have the 50Sii and now considering the 100Sii. The GFX files are just soooo much nicer to work with that the Sony files. Colour and photometry are almost always spot on and the shadow recovery is remarkable - there's almost no noise penalty when you push the shadows. As an X mount photographer though, including the X-H2S (generally excellent), I've lost faith that Fujifilm will ever make a decent AF system.
@@foveacreative the AF can’t be that bad.
@@inquisitvem6723the eye autofocus is pretty bad
I think focus were missed on the eye crop samples where fuji looked soft
Can you point out a time stamp of what you noticed?
@@TheSlantedLens @ 2:25 - I think the same. It'd be useful to show the aperture you used for each shot too, as I think the depth of field may influence things too.
to be fair I believe the A7RV has better eye autofocus
Creo que enfoco mal la foto con la Fuji....El foco quedo en la luna.
I won't repeat what I said about the GFX 100II in the Z8 video. I am a little surprised with the sharpness test, the GF 63mm f/2.8 is a good lens, though I wouldn't say it is close to being Fujifilms best lens. Where the Fujifilm just becomes a beast is with the 110mm f/2. I have several 85mm, including the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4, and the rendering of the GF110 f/2 is on another level, it is optically great, and the only lens I prefer on my GFX is the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar, which is full frame but basically covers the sensor, for things like headshots, and even then I think the 110mm is technically better.
The camera you really should compare the GFX100II to, is the Hasselblad X2D, which has the same sensor, but the Hasselblad is an amazing camera (with better colours than Fujifilm), and a leaf shutter which really helps with flash sync speed. The only downside is the AF with some of the older lenses, but with the recent firmware update, and new lenses, the X2D has really stepped up.
That is a great suggestion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about medium format!
I agree, the 110 f2 is their best portrait lens.
@@TheSlantedLens The 110 is an amazing lens! My go to for portraits.
Which gfx lens is good for landscape?
@@inquisitvem6723 if you are into zooms, then 20-35, 32-64, and 45-100 are good. 20-35 and 100-200 are my personal favorites. If you are into primes, the 23mm is really good.
GFX100II colors is very pleasing! Thank you for your review!
Very true, the Fujifilm has beautiful color!
What shallower depth of field are you talking about?
The fastest lenses in the GFX system are f/1.7, with a crop factor of 0.79 that equates to full frame f/1.34 in terms of DOF. In theory you'd get shallower DOF with equal lenses, but taking the best of both system, you're not getting an advantage.
Ja but since when is more shallow depth of field an advantage? Potrait shooters shoot at f4-f10 no pro shoots at 1.2 if he wants more than one eye in focus.
@@castielvargastv7931 And that's why f1.2 lenses exist.. right
We are comparing the same f-stops and at the same f-stop you get a shallower depth of field with medium format.
@@TheSlantedLens That is true, of course.
@@cy9nvs they exist to make money for canon and co. I am a pro photographer and i dont need it. I shoot at f4-f8 in the studio like most photographers in mY niche. F1.2 is for doing fx shoots but not for real work. No Fashion photographer shoots at f1.2 as well so for whom are those one eye in focus lenses made for?
I initially thought that this comparison test didn't make sense, given the different nature of these 2 cameras. But it would seem that their performance are pretty close overall. For the price and the choice of lenses, I'll stick to my A7RV, thank you very much.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
In the same boat. Bought the A7RV as it is nearly MF, an exceptional FF, and the MRAW or Crop performance bests most APS-C offerings out there... Sony's 1st "complete" (semi-affordable) body. To top it off, Sony's colors are finally up there with Nikon and Fuji... which hurts me a bit to say lol.
The Sony A7RV really punching with the GFX100 II for half the price (plus AF and lenses ecosystem is so much better)!
Good things to think about. Thanks for your comment!
Thank you for this comparison, loved it just as much as the one with the Nikon Z8. A great source of information away from the usual quite biased reviews where you have to read between the lines.
One thing I don’t like about Sony is the type A card, CF type B seems a better option imho.
The advantage of type A is that they can create a slot that will hold wither type A or SD cards. But I do agree that the type B cards are easier to handle because of their size.
FYI - THE Fujifilm is not medium format. It’s smaller than the smallest medium format film which is 645. Fujifilm now calls its GFX series “larger than full frame”.
I'd wager the Fuji GFX uses a Sony made sensor (probably the IMX461), likely the same (or close) tech as the sensor in the a7RV. Pretty sure the pixels are the same size, @ pixel pitch of 3.76 microns (?), If that is true then if the lens was the same, they would get pretty much the same image quality if shot in Raw and processed the same. Obviously, the GFX has the advantage of having a larger sensor with more pixels (higher resolution). That is also likely why the ISO noise is near identical as well. Hopefully Fuji can improve the auto focus performance as it seems Sony wins there.
Lots of good points. The bottom line is that the sensor is larger in the GFX100 II for those who want that larger image.
You are correct. There is no jump in technology in this Fuji camera so there won’t be much of a difference. It’s really marketing
@@Yupthereitism The Fuji 102MP would be great for people that have the money and want/need that many megapixels, I’d like to have one. For now I’ll shoot panos with my a7RIV to get Higher MP landscape shots. I could see owning a GFX, just don’t want to spend that much money on one right now. Hopefully they get significantly cheaper at some point. Guessing eventually we’ll have a 100mp (or close) full frame Sony. Course, by then the gfx will be even higher MPs.. LOL 🤷♂️
@@cdavey7654 I preferred the a7riv over the gfx100s. There are virtually no differences in the image quality between the two cameras. It’s all marketing baloney that these Fuji cameras are anything special
@@Yupthereitism thanks
I have the Sony A7RV and paired with some high quality lenses it's hard to beat it's sharpness. In this comparison the Sony wasn't just slightly sharper, but a lot. The amount of megapixels isn't very useful in most use cases, only for cropping. I wish Fujifilm would release a medium format camera with only let's say 33MP for insane low light capabilities, faster AF, a control wheel and a better screen like the A7RV. Now that would be interesting to me
agree, I don't understand the race for megapixels. I think it should be capped at 100. I have the a7cr and just did a side by side test with an x1dii Hasselblad and 45p lens. I also used the 35mm f1.4 gm lens on the Sony. I shot the same exact shots and it was honestly hard to tell any difference. yes the hasseblad shots had something special to them but you can get the same look on the Sony basically.
@@jharrelphoto yes even when printing it's hard to tell the difference between 12 and 100 megapixels. Some youtuber did this test with a Sony A7SIII and a 100MP Hasselblad. Nobody could really tell which photo was sharper, even large prints.
It's funny when you do the dynamic range test and hover over the eye; the GFX looks sharper than the Sony. I think you missed focus on your first sharpness test. I have tested the Sony 24mm gm on the a7rv with the Fujifilm gfx 100s and the 23mm f4, and the fuji is so much better its miles ahead
Thanks for sharing your experience with the cameras.
the fuji look so better instead sony, colors and lights are stunning
That Fujifilm does have beautiful color!
11648/43.8=265
9504/35.7=266.
The pixel density is the same. Accordingly, the cameras are mathematically equal in detail.
Isn't the GFX sensor more or less an upscaled A7RV sensor? So the per pixel noise and DR are not expected to be very different. Also medium format doesn't necessarily have shallower DoF if you don't have sufficiently fast lenses.
Same sensor tech yes. There are now f1.7 GF lenses. Plenty fast IMHO. I just wish there were more of them.
Sony makes a lot of the sensors out there. And yes, these two sensors are very similar. We have a lesson coming out shortly comparing sensor sizes.
The sharpness advantage of the Sony surprised me.
Us too. The Fujifilm was still very sharp.
The power of amazing autofocus and sharp lenses
I don’t think the initially sharpness test in the beginning of the film held and accurate representation, because throughout the rest of the video through dozens of photos (especially of her nose) the Fuji was much more detailed.
@@SDA-Sound they’re essentially the same where no one would be able to tell the difference unless focus was missed. Fuji has focus problems
@@Yupthereitism yea I think compared to the Sony it does, but Sony just has this flat milky looking picture and video, all my professional photographer friends carry Fuji and everywhere I look in my industry I see Fuji, albeit Sony photos seem brighter or whatever you call it in most scenarios, but I really like the Fuji color. I’m thinking I have to wait another year before dropping 5-9k on a photography camera hopefully by then Fuji will be more reflective of the Sony brands digital trajectory.
What camera do you use to record yourself?
It depends, we use the Canon C200, Sony a7R IV and Panasonic S5 II, depending on what we are doing.
Correction its a cropped medium format sensor, so annoying that the marketing has fooled people who should know!
Don’t be jealous :)
It's funny that people tend to call it "medium format", they probably never saw what a 6x6 negative really is :)
Whatever, it is bigger than FF sensor.:)
You mean marketing like calling 35mm sensors full frame? Originally its called small picture sensor. It was the smallest format compared to medium and large format.
To quote Wikipedia on Medium Format: "Nowadays, the term applies to film and digital cameras that record images on media larger than the 24 mm × 36 mm used in 35 mm photography, but smaller than 4 in × 5 in."
Could you possibly look at both of these RAW in Camera or preferably Capture One pro? Using bridge zooming at 100% isn’t actually doing JPEG?justice to the images.
I’m assuming these JPEG‘s were on the best quality quality of the camera? Is there anyway we can look at Raw files?
Doing HDR test with Raws would be better than using the JPEG. I mean what color space are the JPEG in?
Your options are Dobe 1998 or sRGB which is got a slightly more compressed range.
Also, has anyone done any high ISO testing RAW (not JPEGs) with the image properly exposed at 1600, 3200, 6400, 12,000.
It's mainly a useability review, image quality plays only a minor part. With a Fuji, you will need only little post processing in terms of color, whereas with a Sony camera you'd have to edit a lot to get rid of those color casts. In high ISO tests, I am more interested in rendition of fine details rather than grain in uniform background surfaces.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Wrong. My software corrects all colors on import for all cameras I use. Literally takes no time
GFX is still sharp even at 12800 and Sony is very soft. and sony has color shift and banding. stop trying to make everybody happy. GFX100ii is clearly winner
Thanks for sharing your preference.
Sony was better overall
clearly in this video there are details comparison..and sony slightly better
love your videos gfx is something i am very keen on learning. a question for you i have been asked to photograph beer tankards silver with engraving on highly reflective tried the tents you can but just get the seams show as will my front element of the lens ?
Usually you will shoot with a cove behind you and put a white card in front of the camera with a hole or sweep a seamless over the top of the product and cut a hole in the seamless for the camera. Then you will have to edit out the lens reflection.
An average fuji lens vs an high end sony lens ? With 55mm f1.7 or 110mm f2, i think iq results would be different …
Jay P @TheSlantedLens ! It's been too long! Thanks for doing this, I own the Sony a7RV but have had my eyes in the GFX100 II. I wish you had mentioned that you can get 12-bit Blackmagic RAW video recording with the GFX100 IIs using the BMD Video Assist monitor/recorders. That's a huge improvement on codec, compression and post flexibility!
Thanks for sharing that info Tor! That is a great point!
At 14:53 you can see those Sony “greenish yellow” colors
True, the Fujifilm is more magenta and the Sony is more greenish like you say.
That's exactly the point where I thought, "Fuji wins this". Actually dynamic range too. the teeth look a bit blown out on the Sony, but look great on the Fuji
If you use a color checker they both will be identical. Professionals use those
Its so funny you say the model turns yellow in the dynamic range test as her skin looks yellow in all pictures😂
Even more yellow in the dynamic range test.
When you do direct comparisons like this do you compare prints too? Maybe A2 print for viewing at 3 feet or so with these two. Thanks.
No, we usually don't compare prints for our camera comparisons.
Strictly for photography, would you pick Canon R5 over these?
It depends on the type of photography you do. The R5 and the a7RV are pretty hard to beat for overall still photography. One of the reasons is the autofocus.
Have them both, they are very different. For high quality slow portraits and nature GFX is a cleaner winner, any movement (even slow) and telephoto requires Canon
another win for sony no matter how you spin it, both sensors are made by sony. This comparison only proves that the older fujinon lens is inferior in optical quality.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint!
@@TheSlantedLensAppaling you dont choose your fiew words better, even if only to prove 'you care' about feedback.
Its all superficial business isnt it.
Most of these tests have no relevance. The only thing that matters is that the Fuji has the better color science and those skin tones look natural, whereas the Sony one looks too yellow
Color science is super important. And color preference is very personal.
Keep in mind that much depends on your own eyes and monitor calibration and just subjective preferences - plus you can make colors look any way you want.
Have the Sony A1 & GFX 100II. 2 different cameras for differnet purposes. All in IQ, the Fuji wins easily.
Let’s be honest, I’m here for the lawnmower comparaison first and only then for Dianna.
Dianna did a great job. She was great to work with.
Looking forward to a film episode from you...
We will see what we can do!
Had both. Sony won for me.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
The sony was at the iso test 1/2 stop brighter....
I can't seem to justify the GFX from the A7rv. Base on this test the GFX should not exists. Why buy the larger sensor of GFX when they are basically the same with image quality. I know about medium format look and the GFX doesn't give the real medium format look from the 645. GFX is trash
100 ii is win
The stupid format names 'fullframe" and "medium format"
(their history and double-screwed up of maintaining these names), really, you missed the duty (no, not 'oportunity") to remind that their size is really not that much different - in the sens that good fullframe lenses could often over also the current medium format sensors.
(Maybe, just maybe, it would requière larger diameter of the lens Bayonet such as Nikon's, maybe), and be better then 'bad' fullframe lenses. So what ever theory might be correct, it also becomes reversible if you pic the right lenses (widest open "but" sharp - if you value little DOF). Then it is "only" is a question of witch camera has the better technology, not the better size between these(!) two.
(Sure, my conviction is that the most huge diversity of m-mount lenses is determinating, even if only needing only a few.)
Most people are viewing these things as to what is accessible and not at what can we adapt.
@@TheSlantedLens
..."you missed the duty (no, not the 'oportunity")
to remind every one that their sensor size is really not that much different - ..that good fullframe lenses could often cover also the current medium format sensors."
It's part of the comercialy biased reporting, to leave out any critical thinking.
Your conclusion is only what you wanted to perpetuate a fallacy legend, under the felse cover of wanting and be able to question objectivally and openly, for us. But You are commercially biased, no matter what. Not science, not critical education, not consumer protection. Just one video more for the sake of a next one.
I am not sure exactly what your point is. But let me be very straightforward with you. We try to bring honest unbiased information about cameras to you. We are not sponsored by any of these camera companies.
@@TheSlantedLens (I wrote ..."no matter what". )
What does that even mean" "commercially biased, no matter what"??? - I found this comparison very useful and well thought out. Few people can afford both camera systems, so to see how they perform under some real live situations is super helpful.
@@andreascarl9636 yeayea
I mean sure sure.
The A7rV is not sharper, Just use the good lense
I do think Sony looks sharper but it is just one aspect of image quality, the Fujifilm photo has that smoothness and more analogue and natural look in its quality, when you look at the color of the jumper Sony's photo seems to be a bit wash out while the Fujifilm seems to be more natural.
It definitely was sharper, but as you say, it's 100% due to the lens. Interestingly, the Sony image was not only sharper, but also it took up a smaller amount of the image, meaning that GM lens is significantly better than that GFX lens.
True, the lens does make a difference.
yah the lens matters.
Very true, the lens does matter!
I have both :)
What's your take on the image quality comparison?
Nice. Let us know how you like them.
Sony paying this guy? The gfx is way sharper than this Sony. The Sony is smaller and cheaper and faster focus. Other than that the gfx smokes it
I used both for many years
That is nice that you have been able to own both!
Better for what?
Better for what your needs are.
@@TheSlantedLens Precisely so
Man I REALLY want a fujifilm but Ughhh Fuji is making me buy a Sony.
Awe, that is tough. Wish we could customize the cameras.
I don't know how you really feel, but it was very apparent by the way you talked (from the beginning), that you wanted medium format to win. And you seem surprised the Sony kept winning or tying on lots of categories. You also missed that Sony does 8K video. The 800 pound elephant in the the Lens selection. Sony has 76 E mount lenses (25 of which are crop but can be used at 26MP) Fuji has 17 lenses according to Fuji website. Not sure how many third party AF lenses are available for Fuji G mount. There are currently over 155 Third party AF lenses available for the Sony E mount system. you also forgot to tell us how the scoring went. Fuji got 14 green marks, Sony got 17.
It is a comparison to give you good information so you can decide. I love both of the cameras. I own the Sony a7RV.
@@TheSlantedLens I love your videos, I have learned so much from your Laws of Light series, it just seemed that in this case you really seemed "Slanted to one side" pardon the pun.
Sony colors are so freaking bad. It looks horrible to me. The Fujifilm colors are just the best. It looks totaly natural. I never would buy a sony. Cause the colors are so bad.
Fuji colours ..
❤..beautiful..Sony colours ...😢...hate the Sony look
The fuji image is better thats for sure. 35mm sensors are not the be all end all
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
35.7/9504=0.0037
43.8/11648=0.0037
Всем приветиз РОССИИ😂
Sorry but you Sony boy I think, you and hating GFX system. GFX is winner! I have experience with any system. Sony is other GFX is another world. Sorry thank you
❤
Glad you liked the comparison. Thanks for watching!
first
You are awesome! Thanks for being first!
why sony fake is involed
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!