Confirmed: Canon EOS R5c to be announced next month [CR3]

[privatebydesign]

Going from what I have seen on reviews the Nikon Z7II or A7RIV give the best image quality on FF with the R5 behind both.

As for the GFX 100 Mark Denney reported in one of his videos that he is having to stack multiple images to get the required DOF that he could get in 1 shot on his APSC and FF systems. That tilt and shift lens Fuji announced earlier in the year will be eagerly awaited by GFX shooters.

The GFX system has a 0.79 crop factor from FF. All you need to do to get exactly the same DOF as FF from the same spot is to divide the focal length and aperture by 0.79.

So for example, if i had an R5 and a GFX 100S and I wanted to make a fair comparison of image quality by getting exactly the same shot from the same place and the R5 was set at 24mm, f8, 100iso. I’d use a 30mm, f10, iso 126 on the GFX. No tilt needed.

This would give me a very similar fov (it would be different because they have a different aspect ratio) but the same depth of field and the same noise. It would also show me that there is no substitute for sensor size and the FujiFilm pisses over anything and everything else. The subtlety of tonality and resolution, plus the very high quality of color rendition and the multitude of film profiles you get from the FujiFilm basically makes a mockery of anything else in the landscape arena.

If you want ‘the best’ landscape camera and are comparing it to FF then the very similarly priced GFX 50S II pisses over everything, if you really do want to print BIG then the GFX 100S is the tool to get you there for a couple of thousand dollars more.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As for the GFX 100 Mark Denney reported in one of his videos that he is having to stack multiple images to get the required DOF that he could get in 1 shot on his APSC and FF systems. That tilt and shift lens Fuji announced earlier in the year will be eagerly awaited by GFX shooters.

@privatebydesign summarized the reason for my guffaw. I don’t know who Mark Denney is, but I now know to ignore anything I happen to come across from him, as he clearly doesn’t understand some important aspects of photography.

Would you like to quote some information from the Flat Earth Society next? You seem gullible enough to do so.

 

[privatebydesign]

@privatebydesign summarized the reason for my guffaw. I don’t know who Mark Denney is, but I now know to ignore anything I happen to come across from him, as he clearly doesn’t understand some important aspects of photography.

Would you like to quote some information from the Flat Earth Society next? You seem gullible enough to do so.

He, Denny, also says he brackets for exposure far less with the GFX 100S than he had to with his XT 4. So even given his compromised physics understanding of dof and aperture he is still taking approximately half the number of shots he did with the XT 4 with his GFX on any given trip.

@ 7:54

 

[SNJ Ops]

@privatebydesign summarized the reason for my guffaw. I don’t know who Mark Denney is, but I now know to ignore anything I happen to come across from him, as he clearly doesn’t understand some important aspects of photography.

Would you like to quote some information from the Flat Earth Society next? You seem gullible enough to do so.

Have you used the GFX system on a regular basis yourself to refute what he has said? In the comment section of his video others are discussing that they too have come across the very same issue.

You made a conclusion based on something I wrote on the internet yet I’m the gullible one?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Have you used the GFX system on a regular basis yourself to refute what he has said? In the comment section of his video others are discussing that they too have come across the very same issue.

You made a conclusion based on something I wrote on the internet yet I’m the gullible one?

I made a conclusion based on knowledge of the principles of depth of field and equivalence.

The comments section merely shows that there are several people who lack a technical understanding of photography. You can find many posts on this forum from people claiming they choose to use APS-C cameras instead of FF because they want more DoF. The fact that many people make the same mistake doesn’t make them correct. The Flat Earth Society has many members, does that mean their belief is correct? No, it just means there are a lot of idiots out there.

As to your first question, I haven’t used the GFX. I have a large collection of 645 negatives from back in the day when medium format meant more than ‘a bit larger than FF’.

 

[SNJ Ops]

I made a conclusion based on knowledge of the principles of depth of field and equivalence.

The comments section merely shows that there are several people who lack a technical understanding of photography. You can find many posts on this forum from people claiming they choose to use APS-C cameras instead of FF because they want more DoF. The fact that many people make the same mistake doesn’t make them correct. The Flat Earth Society has many members, does that mean their belief is correct? No, it just means there are a lot of idiots out there.

As to your first question, I haven’t used the GFX. I have a large collection of 645 negatives from back in the day when medium format meant more than ‘a bit larger than FF’.

People are reporting that the issue of too shallow depth of field on the GFX100 for landscape is being magnified both by the nature of it being digital and that its 100mp.

If you haven’t used the camera you can’t claim all of those people lack an understanding of the technical aspects of photography. Some things which are true for film aren’t always true for digital.

Your flat earth society analogy doesn’t apply, Mark demonstrated the issue he found in his video with proof. Tell him that he and all the others in his comment section are wrong but you are right but you haven’t shot with that camera.

 

[privatebydesign]

Have you used the GFX system on a regular basis yourself to refute what he has said? In the comment section of his video others are discussing that they too have come across the very same issue.

You made a conclusion based on something I wrote on the internet yet I’m the gullible one?

Anybody that refutes the physics simply hasn’t done the comparison. It isn’t rocket science or a personal opinion, it is simple physics.

You could refer back to this post from 2013...

Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do. Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[privatebydesign]

People are reporting that the issue of too shallow depth of field on the GFX100 for landscape is being magnified both by the nature of it being digital and that its 100mp.

If you haven’t used the camera you can’t claim all of those people lack an understanding of the technical aspects of photography. Some things which are true for film aren’t always true for digital.

Your flat earth society analogy doesn’t apply, Mark demonstrated the issue he found in his video with proof. Tell him that he and all the others in his comment section are wrong but you are right but you haven’t shot with that camera.

Can you point to a single example of an actual normalized comparison (uprez the ff to 102mp or downrez the FujiFilm to the same as the FF) where equivalence has been respected at exposure? I can’t find one.

This leads me to believe that people, however well intentioned, do not understand equivalence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

People are reporting that the issue of too shallow depth of field on the GFX100 for landscape is being magnified both by the nature of it being digital and that its 100mp.

If you haven’t used the camera you can’t claim all of those people lack an understanding of the technical aspects of photography. Some things which are true for film aren’t always true for digital.

Your flat earth society analogy doesn’t apply, Mark demonstrated the issue he found in his video with proof. Tell him that he and all the others in his comment section are wrong but you are right but you haven’t shot with that camera.

The example is relevant. The Flat Earth Society offers ‘proof’ as well. I don’t need to have walked the circumference of the earth to know their ‘proof’ is wrong.

Recently, @DBounce posted a link to a video that offered ‘proof’ the R3 couldn’t achieve 30 fps shooting in the real world and claimed based on that video that the spec was marketing hype that somehow only paid reviewers could achieve. It turned out the guy that made the video didn’t understand the technicalities involved (he was using too slow a shutter speed to support 30 fps). I pointed that out to @DBounce who proceeded to defend the guy (but later, the YouTuber admitted he didn’t use the proper settings…surprise, surprise).

My conclusion is based on an understanding of the relevant factors affecting DoF. It’s abundantly clear from perusing this forum that many people lack that understanding, as does Denning, the commenters on his video, and apparently you.

Tell me, does the ‘proof’ in Denning’s video involve mural-sized prints of his work viewed at arm’s length?

 

[SNJ Ops]

The example is relevant. The Flat Earth Society offers ‘proof’ as well. I don’t need to have walked the circumference of the earth to know their ‘proof’ is wrong.

Recently, @DBounce posted a link to a video that offered ‘proof’ the R3 couldn’t achieve 30 fps shooting in the real world and claimed based on that video that the spec was marketing hype that somehow only paid reviewers could achieve. It turned out the guy that made the video didn’t understand the technicalities involved (he was using too slow a shutter speed to support 30 fps). I pointed that out to @DBounce who proceeded to defend the guy (but later, the YouTuber admitted he didn’t use the proper settings…surprise, surprise).

My conclusion is based on an understanding of the relevant factors affecting DoF. It’s abundantly clear from perusing this forum that many people lack that understanding, as does Denning, the commenters on his video, and apparently you.

Tell me, does the ‘proof’ in Denning’s video involve mural-sized prints of his work viewed at arm’s length?

In his video he demonstrates 2 scenes shot at around 32mm at f16 (ff equivalence of 25mm and f13) and he still had to stack multiple images to get everything in focus in the final photo. So where did he go wrong?

 

[neuroanatomist]

In his video he demonstrates 2 scenes shot at around 32mm at f16 (ff equivalence of 25mm and f13) and he still had to stack multiple images to get everything in focus in the final photo. So where did he go wrong?

What were the viewing dimensions and distance of the ‘final photo’?

 

[SNJ Ops]

What were the viewing dimensions and distance of the ‘final photo’?

He demonstrated this on his monitor. Even before he magnifies the image in LR the background looks soft, afterwards it’s completely out of focus. Even a moderate sized print would only show this even more.

 

[neuroanatomist]

He demonstrated this on his monitor.

As I suspected. Any ‘issue’ with 32mm f/16 on the GFX would have occurred on a FF camera with FF equivalent focal length and aperture. In other words, it’s not a ‘problem’ with the larger, higher MP sensor.

Now, it could be a problem with the lens. In early DSLR days, people complained about the EF 17-40L having soft results after moving from an APS-C DSLR to a 5-series, and blamed the larger sensor. The problem was actually that the lens is soft away from the center, even stopped down, and using more of the image circle revealed the softness. No idea if that’s what is going on here, but I do know that going from a FF sensor to the GFX isn’t the problem here.

 

[SNJ Ops]

As I suspected.

Printing larger will only make that softness in the foreground even more noticeable.

So either he and others don’t understand the principles of DOF or it’s necessary to focus images when using the GFX 100s that otherwise wouldn’t be necessary on FF or APSC.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So either he and others don’t understand the principles of DOF

As I said, that’s quite common. Even high-profile photographers (and I have no idea if he is one) are not immune to ignorance of technical considerations.

 

[SNJ Ops]

As I said, that’s quite common. Even high-profile photographers (and I have no idea if he is one) are not immune to ignorance of technical considerations.

While I’m sure that is true it doesn’t mean that’s what’s happened in this case. Again he was at 25mm f13 in FF equivalence terms yet still needed to stack multiple images to get everything in focus, why do you think that is? Stop down further and the exposure time increases which might not always be desirable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While I’m sure that is true it doesn’t mean that’s what’s happened in this case. Again he was at 25mm f13 in FF equivalence terms yet still needed to stack multiple images to get everything in focus, why do you think that is? Stop down further and the exposure time increases which might not always be desirable.

Then you raise the ISO instead of increasing exposure time, because equivalence. Also, if focus stacking is a solution then how is increasing exposure time a problem?

How do you not grasp that if he’d shot the image on FF at 25mm f/13 and used the same output/viewing conditions, what was in focus in that image would be in focus in his 32mm f/16 MF image? Is it because you don’t understand equivalence?

If there is less depth of field with the MF shot then something else has changed, e.g. viewing conditions. If you compare a 100 MP image at 100% to a 30 MP image at 100% on the same display, perceived sharpness will differ, of course.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Then you raise the ISO instead of increasing exposure time, because equivalence. Also, if focus stacking is a solution then how is increasing exposure time a problem?

How do you not grasp that if he’d shot the image on FF at 25mm f/13 and used the same output/viewing conditions, what was in focus in that image would be in focus in his 32mm f/16 MF image? Is it because you don’t understand equivalence?

If there is less depth of field with the MF shot then something else has changed, e.g. viewing conditions. If you compare a 100 MP image at 100% to a 30 MP image at 100% on the same display, perceived sharpness will differ, of course.

Raising ISO and stopping down the lens beyond f16 introduces noise and possibly the lens will show the effects of diffraction.

On a windy day with moving elements a longer exposure time is no good or if you simply want to freeze even slow moving action.

I have an understanding of equivalence, yet he did precisely that, shot his scene at 32mm f16 on the GFX yet he needed to focus stack as his DOF was too shallow to get the background and foreground in focus in one shot. Watch his video and you can see for yourself.

 

[privatebydesign]

Raising ISO and stopping down the lens beyond f16 introduces noise and possibly the lens will show the effects of diffraction.

On a windy day with moving elements a longer exposure time is no good or if you simply want to freeze even slow moving action.

I have an understanding of equivalence, yet he did precisely that, shot his scene at 32mm f16 on the GFX yet he needed to focus stack as his DOF was too shallow to get the background and foreground in focus in one shot. Watch his video and you can see for yourself.

Please read about equivalence. Diffraction and noise (and aperture) are all related to ultimate subject magnification. With a ff camera you have to enlarge the captured medium more than you do the medium format capture so the impact of noise and diffraction is more from the smaller format.

As I said earlier, if you divide the aperture, focal length and iso by the crop factor, in this case 0.79, you get two images with identical framing, depth of field (and diffraction) and noise if the two sensors were made identically. Well the truth is the larger sensor will always display slightly less noise but that's another rabbit hole for another time.

This link might help but it really pisses off some members because I link to it quite often. http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

The biggest issue that most people run into when they are looking at different sensor outputs is to compare them on a monitor at the same magnification, typically 100%. This is fallacious as you are enlarging the higher mp image more. There is a way to view images with different mp numbers at the same magnification in PS but it can be a bit fiddly and I have never seen a single YouTuber actually do it correctly.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Raising ISO and stopping down the lens beyond f16 introduces noise and possibly the lens will show the effects of diffraction.

On a windy day with moving elements a longer exposure time is no good or if you simply want to freeze even slow moving action.

I have an understanding of equivalence, yet he did precisely that, shot his scene at 32mm f16 on the GFX yet he needed to focus stack as his DOF was too shallow to get the background and foreground in focus in one shot. Watch his video and you can see for yourself.

Raising ISO…introduces noise…you understand equivalence. Except that if you did understand equivalence, you’d know that raising the ISO to maintain shutter speed with a narrower aperture is noise-neutral when comparing a smaller to a larger sensor size. So evidently you don’t understand equivalence.

As for watching the video, if you’re referring to the one @privatebydesign linked, I saw nothing relevant in there. Fortunately I was moving my bowels while watching, so it wasn’t a total waste of time. He lost me at, “Crop mode extends any lens you have attached.” That clearly shows his technical understanding of photography is crap (sorry, the metaphor was topical), so whether it was the wrong video or not is immaterial.

In a debate between your opinion or the opinion of some YouTuber and physics, I will trust physics to win. Every time.