Stop OBSESSING Over SENSOR SIZE! 102MP (Fuji GFX100s) vs 26MP (Fuji X-T4)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Go to www.squarespace... to get a free trial and 10% off your first purchase.
🔘LIGHTROOM VIRTUAL SUMMIT (May 3rd-7th)
VIP Pricing 👉 geni.us/LRSummit
🔘Download My FREE Guide to Mastering Light
markdenneyphot...
In this week’s episode, we discuss why you should stop obsessing over sensor size, and I conduct a real world comparison between the new 102MP medium format Fuji GFX100s and the 26MP APS-C Fuji X-T4. Now I'm not a guy who relies too heavily on a camera's specs as what matters most to me is what I can see with my naked eye. On paper the medium format Fuji GFX100s should blow the APS-C Fuji X-T4 out of the water, but I wanted to put the comparison to the test in a real world scenario during my recent trip to Utah.
In this video, I take you along on a hike to an overlook that I've never been too before, but have seen images of, to perform this Medium Format vs APS-C camera test. I picked this location as it's a vast and tremendous scene that stretches for miles. I figured this would be a great scenario to test the resolution of the 102MP Fuji GFX100s and the 26MP Fuji X-T4. Also, I get to this location as the sun is rising which also creates a good opportunity to test the dynamic range of both of these camera sensors as well. So nothing real scientific here just a real world comparison to see if the difference between the Medium Format and APS-C is so great that you can easily see it with your naked eye! I hope you enjoy this week's video and thanks for watching! - Mark D.
MEDIUM FORMAT SETUP
🔘FujiFilm GFX100s: geni.us/B0sKNO
🔘FujiFilm 32-64mm: geni.us/qRSQO
APS-C SETUP
🔘FujiFilm X-T4: geni.us/x-t4
🔘FujFilm 10-24mm: geni.us/fuji10-24
RECOMMENDED GEAR PAGE
🔘geni.us/myfavo...
PHOTO GEAR I USE
🔘Stills Camera: geni.us/M8SIy
🔘Action Cam: geni.us/oRhupMT
🔘Super Wide Lens: geni.us/superwide
🔘Long Lens: geni.us/longlens
🔘Super Long Lens: geni.us/longte...
🔘Favorite Tripod: geni.us/rrstripod
🔘2nd Tripod: geni.us/fotopro
🔘Favorite Backpack: geni.us/actionx
🔘2nd Backpack: geni.us/explore40
🔘Ballhead: geni.us/rrsbh40
🔘Filters: geni.us/nisikit
🔘Big Filter: geni.us/widepo...
🔘Printer: geni.us/canonp...
🔘Backup: geni.us/gnarbox2
🔘Full Photo Kit: geni.us/photokit
🔘Full Video Kit: geni.us/fullvi...
🔘Shimoda Camera Backpacks
Use Code DENNEY10 for 10% Off
shimodadesigns...
WATCH THESE PLAYLISTS NEXT
🔘Composition Tips: geni.us/compos...
🔘Beginners Guide: geni.us/Beginn...
🔘Editing Tutorials: geni.us/Editing
🔘Tips & Tricks: geni.us/Tipsan...
FAVORITE TOOLS & SERVICES I USE
🔘TubeBuddy: www.tubebuddy....
🔘Music & Sound Effects I Use: goo.gl/Qh9scf
As an affiliate marketer & Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I earn a small commission on the above links if you decide to purchase the item at no additional charge to you.
#landscapephotography
*LETS CONNECT*
Newsletter: markdenneyphot...
Instagram: / markdenneyphoto
Facebook: / markdenneyphoto
Twitter: / markdenneyphoto
What do you shoot with?
I shoot with an XT-3, best camera I've ever owned!
@@walkermorris954 It is a great one!
I shoot with a nikon d5600 and I love it!
Sony A7RIII!
Panasonic lumix s5!!
better title: me trying to stop obsessing over sensor size but failing 😉😉😉
Good one!!!
Tries to make a video about why you should "Stop OBSESSING Over SENSOR SIZE!" Proceeds to make a video about why you should obsess over a sensor size.
Not really - it depends on what counts for the individual and considerations such as the image destination ie large exhibition prints vs Facebook.
The X-T4 file is slightly more exposed than the GFX file, so it makes sense that the X-T4 colors are more washed out, doesn't it? :)
It would also be interesting to compare the details at no more than 100% of the X-T4 file.
I kind of thought that too. In the first set, the darker areas of the picture were brighter on the XT4 than the GFX100s in addition to the highlights, so I kind of felt like there was an exposure difference between the two. I think there would have been a better result with the XT4 with about a 1/2 less exposure. That said, I still want the GFX 100s. That's the next one on the block for me.
I learned that two cameras from different brand or even different models have different output at the same settings. ISO is basically meaningless number that makes them roughly the same, but not exactly. And even when images seem roughly the same, RAW files can have exposition - they may be underexposed which makes highlight recovery easier or they may have more saturated highlights and less noise in dark areas (or greater dynamic range with both ends better)
The gfx file was created like a minute earlier or so. At sunrise this makes a big difference. Would be nice to see them on 2 tripod's taking a pic at exact th same time and set to a way that the pictures are equally lit. That would be nice ;)
@@Fordham0815 Exactly, at the same time. And the same lens. Otherwise, it's not a fair comparison.
@@noplastik I don't think you really need the same lens because they are two different Systems. And he wants to compare these Systems and not just the sensors. But the timing and base exposure makes a HUGE difference. When comparing the dynamic
I appreciate all the extra video work you do with your B roll filming , that has to be a lot of extra work for you and time consuming but it pays off in your final video !
I know you said most of your work is through social media etc. but I'd love to see if there's a notable difference when the images are printed at a size you might typically use for your work...
Great comparison. Makes me feel more confident that my MFT is still the best choice for me
Thanks for watching Wim!
I find myself using my Sony RX100M6 more and more (1" sensor).
There's a huge jump between M43 offerings and the X-T4, if you leave the base ISO.
It wasn't a good comparison, because the GFX was shot later and the dynamic range of the scene was lower, thus feeding into the expectation!
They're not identical shots. Sun is probably one stop brighter in X0T4 photo, because it is earlier.
Zion is really at the top of my list - I just cannot get enough 🤩🤩
Amazing place!
You should check out Observation Point while you're there. That's where you get that really iconic Zion shot. It's amazing
The hike up Many Pools to Deertrap Mountain is really nice
Hi Mark, a good comparison will be if you print both images and then compare the quality/details of the two images side by side.
I forget the video but someone did this, maybe Peter McKinnon or friend. They did blind tests of same images, different cameras and it was super surprising they kept guessing wrong haha. They blew it up poster size too.
@@dp91c Yeah I saw that too. Was like a really old DSLR body with something like 12MP vs a modern 40+MP and the difference was negligible.
Printers don’t print details beyond 150dpi
@@daydaykeyis lol what? Even consumer printers print at 300dpi and professional printers can do 600 or even 900dpi. If you were printing this as a 12'x9' mural for an art gallery you'd absolutely be able to resolve every bit of detail when viewing up close
@@dp91c yeah i also saw that peter video as well but we're talking about a medium format camera vs a crop sensor camera... If you printed them side by side anyone (even non-photographers) would be able to tell which one was the gfx (not because of the amount of pixels). Have you ever seen what a medium format print looks like? They're unbelievable
Mark, it was great to meet you in Utah at Outsiders, your presentations were great. Thanks for being there and sharing your knowledge and passion.
I’ve been to Zion five times and every visit feels like the first time I saw it. It’s like no other place on earth.
do you know any other gorgeous place on earth where you would not say this? Since retired, we live in a gorgeous place. Every day we make long walks. Every time it is different. Every day I look at it differently.
Love your videos man! I’m still currently using a cropped sensor camera (Canon T7i) and I’m loving it. Learning the basics of landscape photography and portraits. You landscape videos are a huge help with composition 🙏
Pretty much the same here, I have an SL3. I like to outgrow my gear no matter what the hobby. To me learning so much that you need a new camera and not WANT one is the best. It's the same with cars, I could buy an extremely fast car off the lot but, I prefer upgrading along the way as my skills increase.
@@riothero313 That’s a very good way to put it!
I decided years ago to be a luddite and stop the camera upgrades and focus more on enjoying photography... still LOVING my 5dmk3!!
thanks for the video
Great Tom. I still have my Sony a6000 and see no reason to upgrade, but have to admit I still keep looking - just like with my wife.
Generally if someone is asking what equipment you use in relation to an image, they’re asking the wrong question. It should be does that image move you? Very few images are technologically driven.
I've watched two of your videos featuring the Fuji GFX100s, trying to get a bit of handle on medium format. Very informative and I think very balanced and objective. As a complete amateur who's dabbled in digital and Photoshop, I can follow you easily, which speaks well to your prep. The compare/contrast approach you use is very useful to a potential purchaser. Really good work and appreciated.
I’ve been to that spot 3 times now. It’s an awesome view!!! Biggest difference in the images is the brightness. I would have turned down the exposure compensation on the XT4 to match the other camera. Then, I bet the color and tones would look much more similar. -2/3rds, I’m estimating. I often shoot landscapes at -1/3 or -2/3 with my old XT1. At that same location, I was using -2/3 to -1 1/3 range, if I remember, to keep the blue sky and the color on the distant peaks. The EC dial is my most used adjustment.
XT4 does look overexposed.
Setting same exposure won’t guarantee both are exposed the same. Lenses may have same f-stop, but likely slight difference in their unspecified t-stops. Also, bodies likely have differences in their ISO accuracies.
@@teesee03 I agree. And, slightly over processed, to my eye, in the edited version....
@@teesee03 Can we ask the sun to stay in place and to get the same amount of light? I think no ... while the bodies were replaced the light amount has changed.
@@vaidaskazlauskas185 I assume it was done rapidly for a valid comparison.
An independent lightmeter would have confirmed it of course.
Mark as you’ve stated you can see the difference. I have a 24mp and new 47mp camera, there is a difference in tonality, detail (without pixel peeping), depth of field, etc. Across a range of subjects it is a plus. With that said everyone has to decide what works fir them.
interesting: same settings at iso 160 does not handle the lights as good as at 100!?! Wouldnt it make sense to compare iso 160 to 160?
Or in order to compare optimum image quality, shoot the GFX at 2/3 stop slower shutter speed to equalise exposure.
@@chrisogrady28 If one of the two is brighter constantly the exposure obviously is not equal!
@@chrisogrady28 Agreed, but also taking into account that apertures need to be stopped down to equivalents or else the depth of field will also throw it off. If he shot the X-T4 at f/8 then the GFX should have been shot at f/15 if available or just rounding up to f/16.
Iso is aplied gain, so in order to compare both camera equally, we need to shoot at base iso or no gain applied at all
I love how you unpack this. Nice comparison.
Might be fun to do a comparison with a 50-60 MP Full Frame Mirrorless camera with the Fuji GFX100s?
Quite a lot of such comparisons were provided on the Internet, as a result of which full-frame cameras obviously lost even GFX50
Someone did a video of a GFX 100S vs The Sony A7Siii
@@thephenom6327 yes with properly edited photos on a large screen, but when edited to look the same, or when put on something that will crush the photo such as social media sites, you can't tell the difference.
@@neogod29 of course, but such a technique is not acquired in the first place in order to simply post photos on Instagram or Facebook - for these purposes even 24 megapixels are redundant, 6 is enough.
@@richrollin4867 why not, 20mm is pretty wide. I have a 14-24mm on order, I'll like to see if what you say is true.
Hello from Sweden! I wish to thank you so very much for this most interesting comparison! (I am considering to purchase the Fujifilm GFX 100s) ! Wishing you both health and safety and all the best!
Having a big-sensor camera is like having a zoom lens built into the body. You can crop the photo and still retain detail. But for an amateur like me, the cost is just too great. Heck, I can't even justify full-frame.
You can get a good full frame from ebay used if you hunt. I picked up a 6D for £400 (body only) and it was boxed like new. Just had to blow dust off the sensor and clean the mirror. Got a used 24-105mm L lens too for around the same money. Even at f4 the bokeh is delicious zoomed in. My cheapo 50mm looks good too.
@@ArcanePath360 Ya the Canon 6D was the best value for entering the full frame world. I started with a uses 5D MK2 before I get a brand new 6D on eBay but bow that I have a mirroless R6, I would never do back to a mirror for sure! Even the cheap RP would be a pretty good choice.
Jumping from APS-C to FF isn’t a big transition tho. Better invest to a good lenses and if budgets allowed go from APS-C to Medium Format.
@@PanzerIV88 Why would you say mirrorless are so much better?
@@ArcanePath360 Mirrorless is better for more accurate focusing especially when using extremely fast glass f1.2, f1.4, Eye AF and face/animal tracking. You can easily check exposure in the electronic viewfinder as you shoot. If all you shoot is landscape and general street/ travel then mirrorless doesn’t offer any major upgrade. Oh I forgot one other you tend to get more frames per second in mirrorless cameras and it’s less noisy as no mirror to move out the way. In the future coming cameras with improved sensors electronic shutter will make them silent!
Great video Mark. I appreciated your style of telling it like it is not trying to push one thing over another.
Thanks Les - glad you enjoyed it!
Medium Format is cool, but 100 megapixels eats a lot of data. I'm good with my Sony a7iii.
Biggest "flaw" of the GFX 100 for landscape is that it has the exact same pixelpitch as the XT4/3. As medium format has a much shallower DOF you will need to stop the lens aperture down a lot more to get everything in focus. The result is that diffraction starts a lot earlier. To counteract that effect you would need to do focus stacking (not fun with three 100MP files).
You are so wrong on so many levels 😅
@@claudianreyn4529 I am 100% right about it. If you say I‘m not you‘re saying physics is wrong 😃. The diffraction on the 50R/S starts being visible at smaller apertures than f11. With the 100 MP GFX sensor (or 61MP on full frame/ 26MP on APS) diffraction will already be visible at f8. As you would often use an aperture like f11 or smaller on the gfx when shooting landscapes, the gfx 100 will have a much softer look compared to the gfx 50. There are many professional landscape photographers complaining about that and end up selling the camera because the only way to counteract diffraction is shooting at a bigger aperture and therefore focusstacking images (you end up with a 1GB image)
@@claudianreyn4529 on top of that many things are wrong with the information in this video. Shooting at the same aperture with different sensor sizes is bullshit, he should have shot the images with equivalent settings. Different exposures on both and saying something about dynamic range without even touching a slider. And so on… not a very useful video I‘m afraid.
I agree about the video, but the 0.79 factor applies to the aperture as well, so f11 means aprox f8 in terms of 35mm, but compared with X-T4 is actually 0.5. So f11 on GFX means f5.6 on X.
On top of that the GF primes are better.
@@claudianreyn4529 yes that‘s what I‘m telling you. In order to get the same DOF you will have to stop the medium format down more than full frame or APS. Diffraction on both APS and GFX will start at around f8, but in order to get the same DOF with the GF you will need to stop down more (about f16 in this case) which will lead to more diffraction. This is actually a problem for landscape photography (as you often want everything in focus from front to back)
The GFX has twice the resolution of XT4 not 4 times. It has 4 times the number pixels but twice the resolution. Almost everyone gets this wrong
Huh? What do you think resolution is?
You probably are speaking about sensor size. And still your statement is incorrect. APS-C sensor size is 16x24 = 384 mm2, MF 33x44 = 1452 mm2. So APS-C to MF is 1:3.8 (almost 4).
you just killed the sales arguments of good sales men :( You should say everything, in all great details, as often as people love to hear it, everything, but ... the truth
@@simankus No I am not. The responses I am getting proves my point that most people don't understanding resolution. Resolution is not a function of just pixel count. You have to consider resolution in two dimensions. Why? because a photo is a 2 dimensional object. To understand that, consider two sensors, each with 24 million pixels but one that is 6000 pixels wide and 4000 pixels high and another that is 1 pixel wide and 24 million pixels high. They have the same number of pixels but the second one can't resolve anything unless you are photographing a worm 1 pixel wide.
So, resolution is a function of width and height.
Imagine you have a sensors that is in 3x2 format and has 3000 pixels along the x-axis and 2000 pixels along there y-axis, given you a 6 MP sensor. If you want to double the resolution you will need to double the pixel count in both directs i.e. 6000 pixels along the x-axis and 4000 pixels along the y-axis giving you a 24 MP sensor. 24/6 gives you 4 meaning that to double the resolution you will have to increase the pixel count by 4 times.
Now, there is a small matter of sensor's resolving power which is function of pixel density (number of pixels per unit area) but that is different topic.
@@Amaraldo See my reply below. It is not question of what my definition of resolution is. It is a question what is the accepted definition of resolution,
It is not about resolution. It is about perspective. A super 35mm sensor gives a different look as a full frame sensor and a medium format gives a different look entirely. If you are causing resolution then it does not matter. But if you are chasing a different look that is inherent by sensor size then sensor size is valid.
In Sweden a GFX100S cost 7000$ and then lenses to that. I think my better half would say "have you lost it completely" 😀
Assuming you've already converted to U.S.$, that's "ONLY" 16% more than the U.S. price. Are you the man of the house, or a mouse? ;-)
A likely explanation for the better tonality that you observed with the GFX100s is that its raw file has a 16-bit depth in its raw files, while the X-T4 has a bit depth of 14. Hence, the GFX100s has 4 times the amount of color information at each p[pixel compared to the X-T4, in addition to having 4 times the number of megapixels. This also explains why the raw files for the GFX100s are so much bigger....
As a olympus shooter, when I learned that the GFX100s was a 4/3 format, I screamed : "Reject humanity, return to micro 4/3" ahahah
2 minutes in and I'm like "ohh that's Zion" - can't tell you how many times I've done that hike! Great video! I want to edit/continue my video -- as a fellow photographer in SWUT...thank you for posting this, as yes sensor size is "important" but what is more important is skill and composition.
Surely the reason that the highlights on the XT4 are much brighter is because you didn't shoot at 'exactly' the same settings. The GFX was at ISO 100 and the XT4 was at IOS 160 - so nearly +2/3 of a stop brighter? You could have raised the ISO on the GFX to match the XT4.
Thanks for posting this. From the title, I expected the comparison to show little difference. Sure, if you're only looking at the full image on screen, which has 8mp or less, they'll look very similar, especially if the screen has less than 12 bits of dynamic range. (Most have less than 8 bits of brightness range.) For online publishing, any kind of camera will be sufficient. When you're making large prints, that's when the resolution differences really come into play, and for that, your comparison shows quite a large difference between the systems.
The stronger the image the less the resolution and technical perfection matters to the viewer.
There are videos around that showcase the comparison between low mp and high mp prints
Definitely agree with you. No relationship between the number of pixels and a great photo. Plenty of great songs done on a cheap guitar
Really good practical comparison of the two cameras.
Sticking with my Sony a7iii. But, still hanging on to my Canon 5Dmrk2. Just can't seem to let that thing go. I take it out all the time a click a few photos.
5dmkii? No thanks, the x-t2 had better shafow recovery!
4:3 aspect ratio is so good for landscape and portraits. I love it.
What a great video! Makes me happy that I’m deciding to go with the X-T4.
Glad you enjoyed it Daniel!
Interesting comparison, thanks for that! The shot on the xt4 is more zoomed out: That makes the aps-c image eben worse if you then zoom in on a detail and make it the same size.....
Hi, Mark. Very interesting review and comparison. One thing I wanted to call-out is, when you mentioned the comparison of dynamic range and color rendition differences between the two, the X-T4 was at a higher ISO but same shutter speed and aperture. So, because the X-T4 is overexposed, it's going to be brighter and appear more washed out because of the higher ISO setting compared to the 100S. Ideally, having both cameras at the same iso and aperture, and let the shutter speed adjust so that both images have similar histogram shapes would be a much fairer comparison. My guess is that if you reduced the exposure on the X-T4 image by 2/3 of a stop, it'd be a much closer comparison. As far as what I shoot with, I shoot with a Nikon D850.
This. One shot was 1.6x brighter. They are not equivalent.
Amazing information Mark that one would look forward to while making a switch. Your videos are always very practical, to the point and loaded with information. Thanks a ton for brining out such unique content 🙏🙏👍👍
After all, is said the only thing that matters is what you can afford?
Hi Mark, big fan of your channel.
I shoot with Sony A7RIV and Tamron zoom lenses. I went from a Pentax K1 (36MP) to the Sony's 60MP and the difference is noticeable. This reply is some two years after the video was made. Photoshop's denoise cleans the noise in my Sony files (even 100 ISO) and adds perceptible detail to the images. I think with these improvements, I am approaching (even matching!) the image quality of the GFX100s. My Sony kit with three lenses was less than half the cost of GFX100s with three Fuji lenses. Win-win IMHO!
It looked like the xt4 was exposed a tad bit brighter even though the settings were the same. I wonder if there would be any greater sharpness difference if the aperature where at f8 range rather than f16 with diffraction getting closer at f16? Also, with such a distant scene was the atmospheric conditions softening the detail as compared to a wide angle shot up close to compare? I would be interested to see it retested at different apertures, and on an upclose scene. I print up to 4 x 8 feet, so every bit of detail is always welcome!
Good point about atmospheric conditions, more often than not gets forgotten when TH-camrs are discussing how to get "perfect sharpness"
Great photos. I am just a beginner and I like the night sky too. I could imagine this location beautiful full of stars and maybe a milkway too.
So jelly. I'd really love to do that hike some time after the revolution.
Indeed! Such a cool spot - wish I had more time to explore that area, loads of possibilities there!
It wasn't my intention to follow your lead, but I ended up with an XT5 and a GFX 50s ii and I love both cameras and what is the crop sensor and one is a medium format. I also own a Nikon D 850 to slot that in the middle as well, and all three of my cameras, still get used on a regular basis and all have a different purpose, in many ways, I shot landscape photography for about two years with the XT5. Now that made me a better photographer because I had to be conscious of light, I couldn't just underexposed things and rescue it with shadow recovery, because it would soon get pretty messy, but I do love my GFX.
If you only had the X-T3 files on their own (no comparison) i suspect you would be extremely happy with them.
I shoot both GFX (a 50R) and X-T3. There really isn't much between them but the GFX just has something that sets it apart and I prefer the images from my GFX. Shooting though, I much prefer using my X-T3.
I think the biggest difference between the systems is the lenses. Fuji's GF lenses are nothing short of superb
The question then, is how much is the added detail due to the big. heavy, expensive lenses and how much is due to the sensor?
I feel like that 100MP sensor is really being held back by the lens he used because when you zoom in on a lower res camera paired with high end glass, the individual pixels are A LOT sharper.
My current understanding is that the best of the best FF lenses resolve around 45MP of detail, but high resolution FF cameras have already exceeded that in MP count.
(and APS-C lenses are even worse, maybe a little over 16MP of lens resolution for a 24-33MP sensor)
Ok so straight out of the camera with pixel peeping it looks better, my next question is could a little sharpening and vibrance make it look the same?
The base raw image and dynamic range was impressive on the GFX! Almost made me consider upgrading my xt3! But once you showed the edited pictures i decided ill save my money for lenses instead. I think the gfx is more for people who print very large or need insane levels of crop for product images and such.
Also, Topaz gigapixel is cheap thrills if you're looking for more resolution. OBVIOUSLY it's NOT the same, but sometimes it can offer surprising results. Try Denoise as well
@@07wrxtr1 just saved your comment. I like my Z6II but sometimes I envy higher megapixel cameras
Subtile Tonality rendering was why medium format film camera were used in studio (6x7)
And why large formats were used for landscape, architecture...
And what about imax?
The X-T4 image is brighter overall. I’d be curious to see the differences if in tonality etc if they were exposed similarly.
Indeed. Reason number 1 is higher base ISO, number 2 is the moment of capture - a bit later from the sunrise (just look at the mountains)🙂
@@marcinbogdali5348 could also be the a difference in t-stops between the 2 lenses he used
f16 on an APSC camera?!
Thanks for the trip to Zion
Printing is the only real way to see IMHO
zooming in with a good screen on a tabled is also the way. but who on earth does it
Chris Hau did a video with the A7S3 against the GFX. Nobody could tell the difference between 12mp and 100mp printed out.
@@professionalpotato4764 Just like digital audio replay. two files of a same a pop music which is loud but dynamaic range is narrow. one is mp3 & another is 24 bit HRes. Many people then said not much difference betweeen mp3 & 24 bits HRes.
The pixel pitch is essentially the same. So when you drop to an APS-C sue frame, you’ll get approximately the same resolution as an XT-4. When you crop in on the APS-C to approximately the same size, you’ll have way less resolution.
Would be interesting to upsize the XT4 file using Adobe Super Resolution or Gigapixel Ai, and then compare the two files.
Capture One is better for Fuji RAWs.
@@swissheartydogs depends, if you use the 'enhance' feature in ACR/LR it produces great IQ and resolves the foliage issues. on the other hand C1 doesn't need extra steps to produce great IQ from Fuji (and Sony raws also look slightly better in C1).
I am learning with a7ii. So much to learn.
Hi Mark, actually both cameras have a difference of twice the resolution and not four times the resolution. It has four times more pixels but twice the resolution.
how does that calculate?! the Fuji GFX100s has roughly twice height by twice length res.
I love that shutter button on the xt
8:42 proves med format handles challenging conditions better then anyone.
That comparison is not really fair since especially during sunrise one minute makes a huge difference…
Nah! It proves that if you shoot a bit later when the sun is weaker, the scene has lower dynamic range, thus easier to handle for a sensor! LOL
You helped me decide, 100s, color, zoom is fun. Give us moon shots on 100s.
Drones with integral cameras are typically only large enough to accomodate m4/3 or APS-C sensors at most, yet few complain about the footage taken with them.
I watched a video Chris Hau made the other day comparing small prints and large prints from a 12mp Sony to 102mp Fuji and I got both wrong even on the large prints so I guess it really don’t matter unless you like to crop a lot haha
I think the GFX100s is certainly better than the X-T4 in quite a few area's but are the differences viewed at a "normal" distance worth the price difference - that's the real question I suppose.
That video was debunked here: th-cam.com/video/HikdMnXde44/w-d-xo.html
@@MarkDenneyPhoto if you take lens selection into perspective, the choice is obvious. GFX glasses are just a class above the best of xf lenses.
if anything your resolution loss on your gfx100 is due to either shake from when the shutter slaps open and shut or lens sharpness. lenses have a sharpness rating you can check on dxomark to see what resolution it can handle. the best lenses can only do about 50mp.
Legend Zack Arias has an amazing and hilarious called "Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap?" you should check out. It really puts "full frame" into perspective.
I'll have to check that out!
i think in you post processesd second photo, the difference is very VERY small, dynamic range and colors are pretty equal
Thanks for this video. This is why I decided to “downgrade” to a Nikon z6ii from a D850. I felt I was sharing all my photos on social media and the extra resolution of the D850 was totally unnecessary for it. That’s why I went to the Z6 instead of Z7.
Most sites will downsize your image anyway.
Thanks Mark! My brother and I are quite happy for now. But I'm looking to up my game! But as others have noted, no one else seems to notice except other photographers. I'd like to see a print comparison though, as that's what I'm doing.
It appeared to me that zooming in on the unedited RAW files showed quite a marked advantage for the medium format image, but in the edited versions that gap in quality narrowed very significantly.
Hi. Fun title and comparison. I come from a medium format background. Pentax 67, 645, Arca Swiss 69. I now have GFX 50s and XT3, etc. To me the key ingredient is how one interacts with the camera. My best people picture in the film days were the two pentaxes. Which both handled a little differently and produced different kinds of images. My best architecture pics were always with the Arca.
The key issue to me the weight not of the body but of the lenses. The GF lenses are much much bigger and heavier. The other issue is cropping. The gfx100s allows you to take 25/64 aspect ratio that are 50MB. In essence you almost have a Fuji617 camera that is the size of a Canon 5D.
But my reason for using the 50S and future 100S is the effect that these cameras have on me. Somehow they make me change my approach. To me, that’s a difference worth paying for.
Fuji's APS-C sensor is awesome. It really holds its own against the GFX100. Sure 102MP gives you room to crop or make gigantic prints... but damn, is it 3 times better IQ? I don't think so.
medium format
what is IQ ?
@@EmirhanSanl4 image quality
Excellent presentation. Thank you. The medium format resolution is impressive. What actually surprised me is how well the 24mp crop sensor camera did. But as they say in drag racing, there's no substitute for cubic inches. Seems that applies to sensor size too.
I'm wondering how much of the inital rendition simply has to do with how Lightroom handles its initial tonemapping from both fileformat. In the end it seems both files had enough dynamic range to preserve shadow and highlight details
The medium format is clearly superior in IQ, even fully zoomed out. I'd be interested in seeing the telephoto lenses for GFX against the X-T4 though. The price, size, weight, and availability of those lenses is a pretty big deal.
I'm a learner...but surely shooting f16 on both systems is not fair comparison, please correct me if I'm way off though.
you are right. Diffraction on Fuji APS-C lenses already starts at F9-F11. Depth of field also isn't the same
Haha, first you downsized FF -> APS-C, because 26M was enough, now you're thinking of the medium format 😁.
I think part of the color difference you point on is from the sensor types. The 100S is a Bayer while the X-T4 is X-Trans sensor.
"For me its the real life experience what counts, what you see on paper!" - "... Let's do some pixel peeping ...". 👀
The dynamic range, colors etc depends not on the sensor size but pixel sizes on the sensor. And the quality of the sensor design reflected in each pixel.
No the numbers in the sensor .
If you design the sensors with identical technology, the outcome will be exactly the same - pixel by pixel. The larger sensor will merely have more of them to cover a wider area. (Assuming identical pixel size => density).
So the larger one cropped to the lower one will be identical as well.
The difference comes from the differing quality / perspective of the lens. And that the sensors for the larger sensors are designed to be innately better in terms of the parameters.
G.A.S. is a photographer's and musician's most wonderful and evil affliction.
Indeed
And my two hobbies are photography and guitar...fook
@@AcidicDelusion You will be broke for life. Penniless with tons of stuff. Congratulations!
I dont think MP is essential in any photography, but i look at it as a tool. In the a7R series, cropping to APS-C and still having sharp details is really useful. It turns 24-70 to 24-105 or 16-35 to 16-50 or a 35-50 prime duo in a pinch. It lets you use APS-C lenses, reducing the cost of upgrading.
try sony FF sensor vs GFX, then there should be almost no difference
I was considering M43 a couple of years ago in order to consolidate my photography and video gear into one system. But after doing a lot of testing I for one saw a big downgrade in the M43 camera system compared to the full-frame camera system in terms of image quality and capability. Thus, I decided against downsizing. There is definitely some true that larger sensors equals better image quality. But we also have to weigh the quality against size and weight. Full-frame mirrorless is my choice, Nikon Z-mount to be specific, because we can't ever forget the weight and versatility of lens design.
Z6II or Z7II?
Damn the beginning was sooo calming
Glad you enjoyed it Julien!
Depends on what type of photography one does. If one is a commercial photographer, shooting for banners, billboards then the size of the sensor does matter.
Loved the story and experience at the beginning! Looks like you’re getting familiar with Capture One 👍
You are basically getting better resolution, dynamic range and colour gradation, which in short is a camera with better eyesight which doesn't go unnoticed as we view images on larger and better quality devices . Images taken on low resolution cameras however good, will be inadequate in the very near future.
Correct: the dinamic range is much better on the GF camera, the sky and iluminated part of the mountain tends to clip on the XT4, on the GFX is perfect
The GFX100S isn’t 4x the resolution of the X-T4. The correct calculation is the square root of the ratio of the number of megapixels. In this case, sqrt(102/24) = 2.1. So the big Fuji has twice the resolution of the small Fuji.
Comparing the GFX100S to an EOS-R5 or a Z9 you get sqrt(102/45) = 1.5, so one and a half times the resolution of those two FF sensors. The GFX100S had 1.3x the resolution of the Sony A7RV.
Please do a comparison with the GFX and the Fuji crop sensor files using the new Adobe Super resolution enhance details in Camera Raw.
Thanks a lot for this comparison test. Very interesting for my as a X T3 user. One question for me still is, how much of a difference can you see in in prints of different sizes …
I'm curious if you ran the X-T4 photo through a program like the gigapixel and then compare again.
Very useful comparison Mark, the GFX100s is becoming more and more tempting.
The best utility of the high megapixel (with the associated quality) is the ability to crop easily - one can create multiple photographs from the same shot. Same is likely true for the Phase I kinds - no need for composing in the field that much - just pick up the scene and crop creatively.
Thank you Mark, excellent comparison. I have a 24MP camera (Sony A7ii), and although there is a difference in the GFX100 and it's dynamic range as you show, I can't quite justify the cost. Really appreciated your video, and as always, never I'm never disappointed.
Really depends on end use of image file.
I moved on from a Canon 80D (24MP, crop) to a Canon R5 (45MP, full-frame) and the best I can express my first visual impression in words is moving from painting to cinema. At least for landscapes, I always found the 80D to have a more painterly look, while the R5 has a cinematic look.
At pixel level, the narrower dynamic and chromatic range on the 80D manifests as more abrupt transitions with more contrasting edges, while with the R5 transitions are smoother, with more discrete edges. In other words, go for chiaroscuro portraits with an 80D and for sfumato style portraits with the R5.
So, besides the obvious resolution gap, there's a subtle overall look and feel difference. Indeed, it doesn't matter much when you post to social media, but those photos taken with Hasselblads of Fujis have a certain look of their own, even when scaled down and posted on facebook.
Liked the comparison, but I wish you had balanced the two comparative exposures better. The X-T4 needed to be darkened a little to match the 1000s. Or at least I would have liked to see it tried, maybe it wasn't possible to do...