The Truth of Medium Format (vs Full Frame) It's not what you think..
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- GET 10% OFF your next Squarespace website: www.squarespace.com/mannyortiz
MY COLOR GRADING PRESETS: www.manuelortizphoto.com/presets
CHECK OUT HOW I RETOUCH MY PORTRAITS: geni.us/Retouchingcourse
THE MANNY ORTIZ BEAUTY DISH: geni.us/Whitebeautydish
CAMERA GEAR
SONY A7RV: bhpho.to/3NfSYoc
My FAV 85mm lens: bhpho.to/3aQB3Rw
LIGHTING/MODIFIERS
WESTCOTT LIGHTS: bhpho.to/2SdQRsR
BEAUTY DISH: geni.us/Whitebeautydish
STRIP BOXES: bhpho.to/3wSwZvN
ZEPPELIN: bhpho.to/38nVrwE
EYELIGHTER 3: amzn.to/3hiHuVm
Flash trigger: bhpho.to/3lI3x4p
GVM LED lights: amzn.to/3BtoH0h
TH-cam SETUP
SONY FX3: bhpho.to/3t0iZ1V
20MM 1.8: bhpho.to/39UOhAt
SENNHEISER MIC: bhpho.to/3NCtD6K
MIC ARM: bhpho.to/3a2Z0IY
APUTURE 120D: bhpho.to/3GEXuJH
APUTURE LIGHT DOME: amzn.to/3MTgQwP
PAVOTUBES: bhpho.to/3D6DG09
CAMERA SLIDER: bhpho.to/3zhmunx
SOCIAL MEDIA
My Instagram: geni.us/Mortiz
Model- @kaylamia - บันเทิง
For the 16 bit color remember that you are looking at it at best on a 10 bit monitor which is your biggest limitation. Put it to paper in a quality lab.
So true
But more colours means more room for adjustments, other than that I am happy even with 8 bit image quality as a final on screen image, with some exceptions in sky gradients.
Thats even more of a limitation. Even a high end printer doesnt come close to the possibilities of digital displays. The Canon ProGraf hast the ability for about 100.000 to 1.000.000 halftones. A 10bit Display has 1000 times more colours.
I think we’re starting to reach the point of diminishing returns. Paying more for smaller increments of improvement. Having said that, the GFX is an amazing piece of tech and I’m glad Fuji entered the Medium Format space to continue pushing technology and innovation in photography.
Next video will be titled “Why I Gave Up Full Frame for Medium Format”. That chat at the end, that full frame is pretty much all you need, is what I usually tell myself when a new lens with 1.4 or 1.2 aperture is announced. “I don’t need it. My f1.8 or f2.0 is pretty much there.” That conversation in my own mind happens about a week before I get the new lens with the bigger aperture 😂
😄
Too relatable lol
Being shooting the gfx for years and I 100% agree with you. Images are better but you pay in weight and features. I use it because I work 100% in studio and slow pace shots. In any other situation, I would go with FF.
Any other situation? Also for landscape? I don't think so...
@@ivo919 I think they mean if they had to hike or backpack to a landscape they would probably choose a camera with a smaller footprint?
I've seen quite a few landscape photographers use the gfx100s
@@ryanclouse299 The huge problem is that ultra wide lenses are not available for the GFX system, whereas there is even a 9mm FF lens from Laowa.
@@anadrol9934 but gf 20-35 outperforms everything on the Sony side
My last 3 assignments I have been using GFX100s and I once used the big GFX100 last year. The weight and the slow camera speed really meant for portraits and landscapes.
You are right. The average person doesn’t look at an image like a photographer does. Shoot to move the “heart” and all else will follow.
Or as old school photographer Dean Collings said "Beauty is in the eye of the check book holder".
I have been shooting with the Fuji 50sii for about a year now and I just love this camera. I still have my Sony's for most of my run and gun corporate work but the color rendition and filmatic look that I get from the Fuji is not matched by Sony. The autofocus sucks compare to the Sony, but sometimes the images that you get with Sony cameras are too digital looking. If you want to slow your pace down and focus on the art of photography I truly enjoy shooting the Fuji over Sony's.
I agree. I just brought a Fuji XT5 and love this camera images. I haven't picked up my Sony a6400 for photos since.
100% agree
to me all the digital current sensors that I've seen look very digital looking, none have any filmatic look (imho). Any old digital FF camera blows it away, If I want some of that filmic look on digital (in my case I'd grab my old 5Dii + zeiss 50 1.4) but many other will do: 5d, d700, d3...
I shoot apsc and ff, and y have an analog mf and even an analog 8x10", the bigger the medium the heavier,bulkier and less portable the camera... so, it all comes down to what do you need for doing photos of what ...and where! I also use mi phone hahaha😊 ...being cruel and honest, for editing you need a special monitor and gpu capable of displaying all those bits of color most laptops don't go beyond 6-8 bpc 😢 and mid range monitors go from 8-10bpc... still far from cameras.
I think the reason for these " digital looks" are the size of the small pixels. I know this is going to sound weird but my 12mp sensor images look less digital than my 42 megapixel camera.
I’m a full-time Digital Tech in Chicago, I agree with some of the information that you’re seeing in your video. Being a photographer is like being a Carpenter. You pick the hammer that you need for the job.
Depending on how the photographer shoots (Lifestyle, people, table top) that will determine the type of camera you get.
Shooting with the medium format, phase XF system 100 -150 MP is a slower and more methodical way of shooting. On the other hand, the GFX system is a happy medium between medium format and shooting with a Mirrorless system. Here is a example from a job last summer. We were shooting the GFX 100 and the Sony around 5000 ISO for a setup at night. The photographer was shooting stills while they were filming the commercial at 9pm inside of a large camping’s tent. The DP wanted LED lights mimicking a lantern between 3 young girls camping. I was pleasantly surprised when using capture one (NOT Lightroom) how good the files looked in the shadow detail held in the uncompress Raw file. I zoomed in on one of the talents faces that was about 50% of the frame and I could see that she was lit a little under exposed. I could see the eyelashes and see that her pupils are dilated. The Sony files were OK, nothing to write home to mom about,the shadows are blocking up. But this photographer had worked extensively with a GFX 100 system so he knew the equipment and the software (Capture One)limitations.
I’m very glad that most photographers actually rent a Med Format from Doddcamera.com or Lens Rentals.com. or Borrow Lenses.com Don’t go out and buy something cold turkey without renting it first. Pretty much how Manny did his side-by-side with his shooting style. Renting something over a holiday weekend may/may not get you an extra free day of Rental to play with the equipment that you want to consider purchasing or rent for a job.
disclaimer: I’m a Fuji shooter and 99% of my jobs. Photographers want to use Capture One for every Professional job that I am a Digital tech on.
Skin tone difference is night and day.There's so much complexity there in the Fuji shots. It shifts from the warm yellows to violet tones to magenta. It renders the reflective complexity of the skin so much better. The Sony is way more uniformous in the way it interprets skin tones. Which can be good or bad. In portraiture a more simple rendition can be beneficial. But if you're looking for the absolute most light information, MF is probably gonna be it.
If you look at the picture at 1.05 . Under the chin you have almost the same yellow reddish tone in both pics, a bit more saturated in the sony one. But as you move down to the chest area, where the light hits more perpendicular, the sony gives you a brighter tone of the same color, while the fuji shifts to a colder more blueish lemony hue. And you get this variability all over the skin. There's just so much more color resolutiuon there.
Though it is far from accurate. I have yet to see someone outdoors with fluctuating color temperatures and hues in their skin from head to neck. The way her face looked white towards the center of the face is so unnatural looking. Is it stylized sure, but that's not reality.
I have been so curious about full frame and how it compared to full frame. This video was awesome I hope you do more comparisons with type of gear!
I do really love the skin tones from the Fuji over the Sony…wow ❤. What you are demonstrating is portrait photography, but would love to see a comparison with landscape, fine art etc
Outro: This video is only meant to shine light and not throw shade. Find what works best for you to flourish and thrive. Never stop learning because photography is always a work in progress.
Beautiful work. Thoughtful content. Humble man.
Keep up the great work, Manny!
Man those SOOC images from the GFX look like they were taken with my Canon 35mm DSLR from the 90’s. Absolutely gorgeous.
And the Sony images look like they came from any Sony FF camera since the A7II lol.
Same thing can be said about full frame vs crop sensors. Nowadays there are really no major differences but the perceived thought is that there is. Well there is the lack of super fast lenses but that's slowly starting to change. I've seen many TH-camr's full frame vs crop sensor videos and the photos all come out looking the same, where you can't tell the difference unless you're told which is which.
One could argue that there is a BIGGER difference between DX and FF in terms of ISO performance than the FF vs MF. Truth be told, there has been A LOT more R&D in the FX/DX field than the MF space. That's where the money is so they pushed these "smaller" formats as far as they go, whereas MF is only a niche field. Anyway true medium format means H-series from Hasselblad and Phase One, and even THOSE are smaller formats than the smallest film medium-format :)
Two problems. The lack of pro level crop lenses. And. Crop bodies often don't have the same buttons and settings available. What's the point of buying a smaller Sony a6600 to then mount on the exact same 70 to 200 2.8 lens and then not have the performance of an A7S or A9?
There’s still a noticeable difference in high ISO performance. Also, a high end APS-C body comes close to a FF body and at that point, it’s like might as well go FF. More lens selection and I don’t need to do math to figure out the FF equivalent 🤷♂️
I agree KS. I have majority full frame mirrorless bodies, but when you have enough experience with crop sensor bodies, you can replicate a similar image. Ive been using my fujifilm X-H2 a lot more lately. The images I can get from it are just as good as my Sony and Nikon full frame cameras, but with a welcomed weight reduction. I don’t shoot a lot of poorly lit portraits regardless of me using FF or DX, so ISO performance has never been an issue for me. I think most ppl just run with the popular narratives instead of just getting out there and trying for themselves.
I shot with the Leica Q for years and switched to fujifilm XPro 3 and everyone still thinks I’m shooting a Leica. It’s hard to tell the difference if you’re not a photographer that shoots wide open. And even then it’s tough.
I shoot with an A7RIV and chose it over medium format because of all the advantages you are talking about. Although I shoot landscapes mostly and can use the additional resolution, I feel with 60MP sensor, I have plenty of resolution to work with.. Another important consideration is aspect ratio. If I turn a 4:3 medium format into a 2:3 FF sensor orientation, I have to crop away. Then I lose some of the resolution advantage. Most of my landscapes are 2:3 and stitched panos.
I’m wondering if you would come to the same conclusion doing landscapes and architecture instead of portraits.
Good point
In Full Frame vs Medium Format I think it can be best summed up as the more you can control the environment of the shot, the better Medium Format can perform in comparison to Full frame when all else is relatively equal. I feel like Medium Format leans towards "creating" the perfect shot where Full Frame is more able to "capture" the perfect shot.
When people talk about sensor or negative size impacting depth of field, a crucial detail they miss out on is that it's not a 1:1 comparison. If you put a 35mm (focal length) equivalent lens on a camera with a 6x7 negative vs an actual 35mm lens on a 35mm negative, the 6x7 shot would have significantly shallower depth of field at the same aperture and field of view. There are no digital sensors that big. The "medium format look" comes from different DoF at comparable field of view and the visual impact of that is greatly diminished when the sensors are actually really close in size and aspect ratio (like FF Sony and Fuji GFX). Even the largest digital sensors are only like 645 negatives and to be fair, you would start to see a real difference there, but what do you know, that's what you have to pay $20K and up for. Don't sleep on 16bit colour though, if you're shooting for a magazine or a big campaign and your images area going to be retouched by elite level techs, they'll wish you shot everything in 16bit
Thank you Manny. Your honesty is sincere. Had a great time watching your video. Bless
1st - turn off that electronic first curtain :D
2nd - go test out the PhaseOne Trichromatic 100mp ;) than compare colors and dynamic range.
I shoot (baby) MF, FF and APS-C. What I will say is this. With MF there is a 'look' that the other two can struggle to replicate at times, BUT... to derive that look you need to play to the strengths of the MF sensor which actually is not to shoot wide open and seek thin DoF/bokehilcious. If all your experience thus far in your comparisons are as shallow DoF as possible (like you show above).. then yeh the differences are slim to none in seeing 'a different look'.
Where I feel differences are felt the most is when you actually stop down the medium format camera. There exists this space, depth and breadth in the image between your subject and environment (which you haven't blown to smithereens with bokeh) that APS-C definitely struggles to replicate (even with f0.85 glass) or FF glass at an equivalent aperture. It's an 'environmental' portrait look, the buildings behind, windows, clearly defined with context, yet the image does not feel flat like it can do with APS-C and FF and instead this breathing room seems to exist. You have to get everything dialed in, the right lens, distance to subject, subject distance to backdrop etc, it might be f4 on MF and f2.8 on FF, something that stives to get about the same DoF or bokeh amount, but when you manage it and the two images look similar... the MF will have more space and life about it.
And also of course those f11 or f13 studio headshots, try some of those.
Basically in summary I have never felt the shallow DoF or bokeh was a strength of MF, and if all your comparisons are based around such styles then definitely its hard to see a difference with todays fast FF primes. The smaller the sensor the more flatter things feel at certain apertures. MF feels spacious but you'll only experience that under the right circumstances.
Great comments, Manny. I shoot both Sony and Fujifilm, and love both systems, but each has it’s own use case. I agree for studio or landscape, the Fuji is a fantastic tool - that resolution and dynamic range are incredible- but for run and gun the Sony is the much better choice. One thing about the user experience that I’ve noticed…the Sony feels a bit like a computer with a lens attached, whereas the Fuji feels more organic, almost an analog shooting experience. But again, both systems are wonderful tools that can create superior images.
For me the biggest take away is that every camera has a purpose. And if you use the camera to it's ideal use case then you will get the images you want. From my perspective the Sony is 100% the better camera for you and what you shoot. For me on the other hand I shoot product photography in a studio where a camera like the Fuji would make getting the finer details easier. It's okay that medium format isn't for you, and I think if people watch this with an open mind then they can decide whether this camera will actually work for them or not.
I recently discovered your channel and I'm fully enjoying the content. I must say after years of using APS-C I'm looking at full frame and the Canon EOS R8 looks very good. Keep up the content great work
Thank you. Very good honest up front review. Beautiful model btw.
Hi Manny, I was a Nikon guy for many years using FX full frame, about a year ago I purchased the 100s. Manny, I still use my Nikons but after working with the 100s for a while I found the clean-up on so-so shots are much easier and cleaner.
Great video. Thanks for all information.
thank you for your sincerity on this topic!
excellent video, I love manny's videos
Great video. Love the new wide-angle talking head setup!
Excellent review. Thank you.
Great video.
It is an interesting comparison, and your conclusion makes sense.
I think it all comes down to knowing. Meaning, if you KNOW you get smoother tones and gradients then what are you going to do with that knowledge. That's different than, say, a business decision where you don't think the client will notice and you have to decide if it's worth it. Olympic races are measured differently than a high school track meet and there's a reason for it. Diminishing returns are a very real concept, but with that said "it's lonely at the top" in terms of ability and in terms of knowledge. So, I guess when deciding if medium format is worth it personally, it depends on where you see yourself in terms of the high school/olympian comparison. And also if it's in your price range.
"Your" refers to any reader, not necessarily the producer of the video.
Beautiful organic focus gradients, and pleasing colors, but 90% of the clients won't see a difference. Thanks for the video Manny!
I think you should have used a wider lens to compare both formats ( say a 50mm for meduim forrmat and 35mm full frame).. As larger sensor allows you to get close to the subject without the distortion you would see with an APSC or a full frame.
Every point you made is spot on. I’m shooting the Z8 and I’ve made the same observation.
In Manny’s examples the Fuji had VASTLY superior skin tones. Massive diff.
Thanks for sharing and showing this I saw it before by an other photographers page and now I don't have to buy small mini or full medium format for what I shoot and also my age over 65 I stay with Nikon's full frame still DSLR D800 ,in progress for getting D850 or the upcoming Z8
I see the difference more in my prints. On the screen , I agree with you for the most part. Though it does seem I can push the raw files more with the gfx100s. Low light and high iso I get way better results also.
Helpful video, thank you
Great comparison. One big issue which nobody is talking about is the massive drop in image quality looking through the evf of the Sony a7rv when using the high display mode and half pressing the shutter button causes a lot of morie and distortion
Manny always shows my city off in a beautiful way. Excellent video. Beautiful model.
Your video's are really awesome!
Great video Many, my two cents are, the a7rv is one of the best that full frame has to offer, the Gfx not so much(some purists might say that it's not a real medium format)it would be interesting to see the A1 vs the best Hasselblad or phase one.
A1 is worse than a7rV in terms of image quality.
It helped out a ton because i’ve been going back and forth on that Fuji… but again you are speaking truth….. so that is why you kick ass
Very good comparison video. Something I had not seen before.
Already liked it in the beginning because we need more comparisons between the full frame and medium. More pls!
Photography has plateaued in terms of technical capabilities. If you have to punch into 200% to strain to see the most subtle distinctions, the point is moot because no one is doing that. Now, more than ever, media is being consumed at the speed of light. Back in the 90s or aughts, a photo like the one at 7:07, across two magazine pages, might have caught people's attention. But now, ppl scroll right past something like that on Insta in 5 seconds (if even that!) I liked what I saw with the Fuji GFX 100s here, but even with the Hasselblad $45,000 digital backs, I doubt if your average person would notice any difference from a Canon R5 in the way most media is consumed today, which is on cell phone. I will say that the one exception is lenses. Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference.
Agree, "Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference." Cause you are in front of a 16 feet wide by 9 feet high or 20 feet wide by 12 feet high screen , the highest resolution optics and lens are a must.
It has not plateaued. Human eye can see 20 stops of dynamic range. Cameras still have a lot of room for improvement.
I agree, and you're right about lenses for movies. Anamorphic lenses specifically with a 2x squeeze or beyond have a visibly different look, and all cost 10,000 or more for the real deal. But I also believe HDR will be important in the future, as display technology advancing will allow for finally dynamic range to matter beyond the ability to edit. Itll matter in end delivery. But that will take some time, and ultimately it'll be displays leading the charge more than the actual cameras, but it will allow us to use the cameras more fully.
I've been saying this! I stepped out of the photography game to focus on learning and mastering videography, but when I came back and bought another photography camera, I was blown away for two reasons: 1) the autofocus is SO good 2) the raw images didn't look THAT much better than a 9 year old Nikon D750... there was a difference but the actual image quality was very close.
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 That's why we have HDR option in the cameras. HDR is more that 20 stops.
Manny is there a reason you didn’t go for the 80? Or try a wide angle lens? I feel like something people misinterpret about MF is that it has to be shot like a FF camera and I think if you tried wide environment portraits and also the 80mm then reviewed your prints you’d be wildly surprised at how VAST a difference there is.
Many thanks for addressing a much needed answer for us folks not taking the opportunity to conduct this kind of test. Knowing how pertinent and serious your videos are as a rule, I am quite sure I would come up with a very similar conclusion if I was carrying the test myself. Now, when dealing with portrait, is not a unique remarquable look, expression, gaze caught in a split second by a fast & smart responsive gear better than a perfect color handling, resolution and smooth texture ? I understand it depends a bit on the kind of pictures expected from you, but as for me, I'd go for the efficient, slightly lesser perfect but ready when I need it. Vey useful and smart video worthy of your prodiction !
I used A7R2 and A7R3 for years and I finally moved to Fuji XT4 and now rocking Fuji XH2. Every Sony image you showed has the same green and yellow tones on Skin which I hated on my previous Sony cameras. It looks like after all these iterations, Sony still SUCKS on Skin tones. Fuji has the best natural even skin tones. I always had to correct the skin tones on Sony but on Fuji I do not have to correct them at all.
Everything you said relates to APSC vs FF comparison too. I just did exactly same test myself and can see much more difference between medium and a FF than FF and APSC.
I shoot with the Pentax 6x7 and you can really see difference compared to a full frame camera. It’s a snail but my oh my the images you can get
Great video as someone that's been thinking about buying an X1D II 50C. Full frame sensors have come a long way and the gap between full frame and medium format is very small now unless you move up to things like the X2D with 100MP.
Always great videos. I agree Medium format for commercial work but for most work full frame will get the job done.
Shot Sony A7R4 for years and recently switched to Fujifilm GFX 50Sii and I miss the AF and speed of the Sony, but the IQ from Fujifilm is superb! Glad I switched.
Hi Manny, thanks for the nice comparison. In regards to the 20 stops dynamic range of the human eye, that's for the combination of retina (equals sensor) and iris (equals aperture), all the way closed to fully open. At one specific moment, and a specific iris opening, the eye's DR is much smaller. So to be fair these 20 stops need to be compared to a camera / lens combination, taking into account the lense's aperture range, too.
My eye has multiple native ISO’s. It just takes longes for it to kick in once I transition from bright outside to dark inside.
@@itacatv2146 Indeed, that's on top to the Iris's opening and closing - these biochemical changes take many minutes, but add another component to the human eye's DR.
Thanks for your thoughts.
To me the skin tones looked more natural with the GFX100s, except at 2:22 where the sony looks better. However, to be fair, i would match the white point and color in post (not straight out of camera). The sony looks warmer with more saturation and a different gamma. Look at the white singlet when side by side.
Of course, there is only so much we can see once compressed for you tube. I imagine that one of the reasons someone would go with say the Hassy is predictability in the color science and the excelent lenses, as much as the fact that it is medium format?
For me this GFX look is different and worth the price. I'm Sony user but if I had a chance to change it I would do it. If you want to have this fashion/cinematic look, medium format with better DR is everything.
This might get lost, but some fast full-frame lenses do have an image circle large enough to cover this sensor. For example, some of the Voigtlanders. Take a look at Benj Haisch's channel if you want some examples.
Real, truthful, valuable content. In the end, the eye is stronger than the equipment anyway.
When medium format used to mean 6cm x 7cm vs 2.4cm x 3.6cm, there was a big difference. Nowadays medium format sensors are closer to 3.3cm x 4.4cm, I don't think there's much difference compared to full frame.
Thank you for a fair comparison. I know I shot at a meetup and a guy was shooting this camera but I did not see a big difference.
There is something you are missing here. Look at all the side by sides again. While the 110 is an 85 field of view it still has the compression of a 110! In every side by side you can see the background compression way nicer more compressed. That’s the medium format look! If you are on an 80 and it’s like 50mm equivalent you still get the compression of an 80 if you’re standing in the same exact spot. Because it’s not a 50 it’s actually an 80 but gives you a less field of view. That’s the medium format look and it makes things more three dimensional. As far as the 16 bit colors that you will see in editing latitude not sooc.
GFX100s is a studio/landscapes
A7rV or any full frame is for everything else. That what I'm seeing with this. I love the A7rV and pairing it with small good full frame glass like the 55mm f1.8. small light weight. Pair it with the 14mm f1.8 and solid results
Hi Manny. Thank you for this excellent comparison of the image quality of the GFX and FF Sony. As a Nikon Z System landscape, product and macro photographer, I have been quite satisfied with the image sharpness and detail I obtain from the Nikon Z System (Z7, Z8 and several lenses). However, as I do on ocassion produce very large prints *30"x40" and up), I've always had an interest in medium format. So, in your opinion, do you feel that the X2D with, say, the Hasselblad 120/3.5 XCD Macro lens would give me a very substantial improvement in image quality (particularly image sharpness and detail rendition) in the large prints? Thank you sir!
Great video Manny. As you mentioned, it really depends on context. Sure, the medium format is better, but is that slight difference in quality worth the much bulkier and slower system? Probably not for most shooters outside of those who are in a completely controlled studio environment. And once you've experienced the performance of a FF Sony or Canon, it's hard to go back, especially regarding autofocus speed and accuracy.
It’s not a slight difference in quality though, it’s far better on the GFX
@@jaychow94 I just watched this video in 4k and saw the images side by side. The difference seems marginal.
I would even say that it is difficult to tell them apart in a double blind test, especially if they aren't side by side.
@@DeletedDelusion You can't just go by two images presented on a youtube video. As someone who has worked with both extensively, there is a difference. The same difference that you see when you compare FF to APS-C.
I'm not saying that full frame is bad in comparison, just different. For slower things like portraits, I much prefer the look and handling of the GFX files. For fast paced action like sports shoots, I would completely avoid the GFX and use the Canon R5 which is an incredible camera.
@@jaychow94it’s really not, I love owned both
I use both commercially. The GFX has better image quality, the Canon is better at everything else. @@Yupthereitism
Thanks for your opinion :) I have medium format RZ67 and when I took a photos with this camera I felt the magic :D specially with Kodak Portra film. I highly recommended to try shis set for portraits :)
Manny, when I was video taping weddings back in the 80s ,90s early 2000s, if a photographer shot with a Hasselblad, he was given great respect. If you do Hasselblad I would say don't use one of thier lower priced ones.
Probably the best comparison is between medium format and full-frame on film, because the different designs of sensors keep the comparisons from being apples to oranges. Also, film medium format is so much larger than full-frame that if there’s a difference, it will be more dramatic.
There is one thing that so far no one I watched has covered when comparing the sensor sizes, and it applies for even switching between an APSC and 36mm. Compression, which is very important when it comes to portraiture work. Bigger sensor let you keep the compression (distance) while getting a wider view. It is very well visible on the old analog huge format photos. So with a medium format, you can get a compression of a 110mm lens, while still having a fov like 85mm on a Full Frame when it comes to GFX, not that huge difference, but better visible on for example PhaseOne or analog.
That is not true and is a long busted myth. With that logic an iPhone portrait image would look horrible with its 6mm lens. There is only angle of view. The 110mm on the gfx has the exact same angle of view as a 85mm on full frame and therefore creates exactly the same image.
love the outro of the Manny's videos ...so intense 🫢🤣
Thanks, nice video! A question: what camera bag are you using in this video?
Oh you can see the difference for sure! I love my GFX 100s!
Manny, thanks for the video. Are the improved colors and their smooth transition a function of the medium format sensor or is that really a Fuji vs. Sony thing? That is not really clear to me and not sure how you prove it. Even in Sony I see differences between the new A7RV and my A1. I like the A7RV more which is why added it for portrait work. I have considered buying a GFX100S as well.
I shoot both Sony a1/a9 and Fujifilm GFX at weddings. I use Sony for fast paced scenarios and GFX for getting ready/portraits. I use it with a FF lens, so it’s worth it for me (it looks close to real medium format Contax 645 + Zeiss 80mm f/2)
You have hands down the best outtro. Genuine awkwardness. So good 😂
I think it all boils down to what you're using it for and if you're going to be displaying your images in large billboards and that sort of thing, that you need those very small details so that the image stays sharp.
I think what is also really interesting is a quote from Manny's X100V piece where he says that for FF he shoots for the edit but with the APS-C sensor he shoots for the jpeg. In my own photography that's very true, I've found that Fuji's jpegs have completely eliminated the need for RAW editing. I adjust the jpeg a little only for taste and I'm done. I've found this so liberating as I no longer avoid those all those images on the card that still need editing. Each system is a compromise, try to be honest with yourself when choosing your priorities and find the system and sensor size that meets those requirements. Typically I print out upto A3, and usually in monochrome so I find the Fuji APS-C offers all that I will ever need.
I personally didn't care for the images out of the 100v. I ended up selling it and moving on to another smaller format camera. While very much different, the Sigma FP is pure magic... amazing system.
I see someone has caught the synthwave bug. Also if you shoot with a Phase One or a Hasselblad it would make more of a difference cuz their sensors are bigger and have more color depth.
Great video. Answer the questions for many. I guess medium format has an advantage for those who want to use vintage lenses that cover a larger sensor size. Say hasselblad 110/2 which is a great glass. But yea, full frame lenses and camera tech is still way ahead.
What you should've tested is having the same exact settings on both cameras and then looked at the histogram and compared it. You'd see the difference and how much more it can produce. And of course shooting on a tripod. If you did that, then you'd be able to zoom into her iris and see yourself in it. It looks like your a studio photographer so you'd see how much sharper and how much more detail you can collect and how much more you can push editing with the GFX100S. It does a better conversion to black and white as well. And also you can get pretty fast auto focus if you switch to zone autofocus and do custom autofocus settings
From this comparison and others i have seen. i find the skin tones to be more pleasing and natural. The Sony seemed to be more on the reddish side on this comparison. i shoot mostly portrait and landscape and always wanted a medium format camera. i plan to purchase this Fujifilm gfx 100s camera as my first mirrorless camera soon. i have a full frame Nikon D850 that i use mostly for fast action as well as portrait and landscape. Thank you for the review. i have learned a lot from your videos and have followed you for a long time now.
Nice unbiased test!
Unless you need 100 megapixels, you don’t need it. That or unless you shoot manual focus with really fast medium format glass.
Also, if you prefer a 4:3 ratio, you will
Need to crop the full frame image making the sensor size difference more apparent. Reverse holds true, if you prefer 2:3 , the difference becomes even smaller as you crop the GFX image.
I did notice in your shots that the size of the blurred background elements in the gx100 shots seem to be a bit bigger. Did you notice any differences in terms of compression?
Some would argue that’ “semi” medium format would have more compression for the equivalent focal. Some would argue that it’s gonna be the same compression as your distance from subject would be the same (110mm MF vs 85mm FF ). What do you think?
Very precise and objective. Full frame is at the sweet spot in terms of IQ, speed, depth of field and size.
I don't know this any difference except the color is warmer but that's something you can very easily change
I think the issues are that FF difference vs MF are much smaller in terms of IQ than from FF to smaller formats. For example the DOF advantage of MF is actually the opposite since FF offers faster lenses. And then you have FF bodies with far superior features like AF way above any MF.
good video
Nice video. Also god that you highlighted the typical digital medium format sensor size vs the larger medium format size that’s seen in cameras costing 40k
Literally been at this crossroad for the last 2 weeks. I have an A7R V but the Fuji GFX 50sII is on sale right now and it's reallllly tempting me. I need a second body and I like adapting vintage glass so I don't mind the manual focus. I think the color data in the files is less important when you are shooting in good lighting. It's more about when you aren't. Some of the most impressive GFX images I've seen are in low light or less than ideal lighting conditions. It seems like the extra flexibility and color information of the GFX files allows you to get stunning results even when you have mixed lighting, heavy color casts etc.
nah.. I just sold my gfx 50s with the 50mm f3.5 + 45-100 f4.. got the R5 to compliment my R6 wedding work .. in all honestly the wow factor is when you see the picture without retouch .. after you touch it .. and put it in the web.. no more wow factor ..and the slowness of the medium format is killer
If your thinking to go the GFX route might as well go for the 100s. The autofocus is a lot better than the 50. I had shot with the Sony 7R3 before switching and had preorder the A7RV but decided to go with the GFX 100 because I didn’t enjoy shooting my Sony as much . I found it to automatic if the makes sense. The slowing down did me good and I love my camera. By no means do I think Sony is less and the wonderful third party lenses you have available is insane. In my opinion just go with what makes you happy now and a couple of years from now. I struggle with this until I made up my mind lol so I know the pain 😂
Great video. Thank you. A side question; what’s the camera bag you’re using, seen at 1:14 ?
on my opinion the big difference is in the wide angle cause with medium format you can have the look of 24mm but the angle is like 19mm on full frame.. and there is also much more difference in colors and less CA.. thats the reason why i shoot with the fuji GFX 50R wide angle until 50mm (all manual focus) and with the sony A7R3 with telephoto lenses with autofocus.
I heartily recommend you to remake this test with wide angle examples!!
I assume, that you adress the portrait photography area; in this case, the Sony and the proper glass will be better. I use the GFX 50s I for landscape photography and I see a big difference, because the image looks more plastic, like 3 dimensional and of course it depends what you are shooting. If you shoot a wall, there will be no difference.
Hi, there are actually many full frame lens that can cover medium frame sensors to give extremely bright aperture: Sigma 40mm Art (equiv. 32mm F1.1), 50mm Art (both DG HSM and DG DN, equiv 40mm F1.1), 70mm F2.8 DG MACRO Art (equiv 55mm F2.2), 85mm F1.4 DG HSM (equiv. 66mm F1.1), 105mm F1.4 DG HSM (equiv. 82mm F1.1), and many more!
just curious, if you shoot for social media, does how much of an impact/difference is there, in terms of color depth and dynamic range? is the benefits of a bigger sensor really only in the resolution for huge prints?
Those cameras are anyway overkill for social media. Even an old 6MP dslr will perform well on Instagram or Facebook. Instagram can only display 1,2 MP I think. You will also lose details because your zillion MP image will be compressed. Billboard is done in general with 2MP because you will look at it from far away and in that distance everything will be sharp. Megapixel race is a myth. The only advantage for those high end megapixel camera is for cropping
@@bobamarmstrong no doubt about that. that is exactly why I am wondering if there are any other benefits, such as color depth and dynamic range if the image is going to be compressed in social media.
This is a very good comparison between two formats. For me the GFX is a bloated FF-system. And here is why:
The 15 stops of dynamic range may only be important if you do photoshop heavily. Most cameras have a recorded output of around 12isch.
The lenses have a dynamic range too. Not all lenses perform equally at all frequencies.
If you like bokeh, then FF is the better system and more affordable.
I am not sure if the GFX50 is better since the photocells should be larger.
I would rather consider a real MF system such as the Hasselblad H6D-100c or the Phase One System.
Speaking of dynamic range and the recorded 16bits. Hasselblad was recording 16Bits with their 50MP senor but only 14Bits were processed.
Going down the line, how many bits can your monitor represent? 6, 8 or 10? 8-bit+FRC or not? In the end an image is getting diluted a fair bit before you can see it.
I don't think you a radical difference in the color until you do something like a landscape shot, with the radial gradation of color in a sunset or sunrise.
Exactly, which is why so many top landscape, portraitists and studio photographers shoot medium format. A handheld outdoor street portrait is hardly a definitive test where we can claim to have uncovered “the truth about medium format”. Lol.
Dude! Audio levels !!! and channels!
I’m waiting on the upcoming 3D-curved sensors that got patented, to see what that does. I thought: Combined with medium format it might be worth stepping into that world, but now not sure the “medium-format”-part seems a game-changing factor. Thanks Manny for your insights into the affordable part of the “medium sensor” world. 👍💯
Medium format does have a certain look vs. full frame that a trained eye can see. Majority of people won't, though. Prints also have a different quality in medium vs. full. I like using medium format whenever possible but it just can't capture movement well enough for me.