102 vs 12 Megapixels, Part 2 | 30 Days of GFX 100s
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- In this video I give my thoughts on some of the many comments and criticisms from my last video reacting to the comparison of 102 MP GFX 100s files vs. the Sony A7s III and my Fujifilm XT4.
Follow me:
Site: www.josephmark.com
Site: www.bigwallstud...
Family site: www.familyphoto...
Facebook: / josephmarkphoto
Personal Instagram:
/ family_photo_life
Professional Instagram:
/ josephmarkphoto
I’m an affiliate marketer with links to an online retailer and receive commissions for purchases made through these links and affiliated sites
If you want to order my kit from amazon or check prices you can use these links:
Fujifilm GFX 100s - amzn.to/3tbUlJf
Fujifilm GFX 110mm f2 - amzn.to/3thrL9v
Fujifilm GFX 32-64mm - amzn.to/3csrklX
Where are you Joseph ?
Hope all is ok.
I’m really missing your videos. Specifically the videos about Olympus/ OM. I would love to see your reviews about the new OM1.
Joe: Not a HINT of how the 80MP mode from Olympus compares to your $6K-102MP-monster.
Hope your ok. Miss your Olympus videos.
History repeats itself and so does this argument. You are absolutely spot on with you have said here and in the previous video so I am not sure why you are being criticized.
It’s been four months with no video. What happened to Fuji?
Joe, for the vast majority of amateur photographers out there, investing in a super mega-pixel camera would be comparable to buying a Maserati super-car. Sure it'd be fun to admire it on your driveway, but you're unlikely to get any kind of real benefit from owning such a technological marvel. Yes the super mega-pixel cameras give you bragging rights, but (as you said, Joe) what's really important is investing enough of your time in learning how to see and capture a truly interesting image. Except for a few specialist photographers, pixel-peeping is really not where it's at.
Keep up the inspirational videos, Joe
Rick Bear
(Someone who has been making his living from photography since 1981.)
Same for Pros.
3:15 In the past I've been hired to do events where I managed to process and deliver the best images from that event the very same day, and yet the crappy cellphone images and selfies are what get shared by the participants. Most people don't care about image quality or artistry, they simply want the world to know they were there. They want social proof. Makes me question why I should bother sometimes.
I've been there too. Corporate event photography can, at times, feel you're running a marathon and no one is watching. It's after those long days making required images that I'll finally catch a moment that I really love... it will get spread around by 5000+ people and it's enough to keep me hunting for the next one. Ultimately that's one thing I love about weddings, the story and emotion are packed into one fast paced day instead of random moments of a long week at a conference.
@@JosephEllisPhotographer I feel this is what will kill potential future prospects of corporate photography talent. why bother with a huge dslr when participants want pictures right there and then and in most cases there phones camera come with better color or composition with a flick of there phone! makes the a camera owner feel so outdated!
@@New777World Every time I think user content from phones will take over I remember how poor the average person is at making images regardless of the tool. We have to kill them with content and vision. And we have to do our best to deliver things in the moment- that is the culture - but with modern cameras and phones for editing it’s fun to see what is possible.
@@JosephEllisPhotographer thats true! its just that technology is advancing at warps speeds! on boths side of the isle! this why i shy away from pulling out a big camera rig when iam around a crowd full of camera phones and in most cases look at just shooting at nature and wild life just as photography therapy! my skils are not just there to compete with camera phones at the moment! at times I try being courageous but i guess i need to work on that as well!
Good summary of the many competing views and needs represented by the photographing community. Those with other needs should use cameras that meet their needs. Your Photo Quality vs Quality Photos was a great way to make the point.
Hi Joseph. I hope you are keeping well. A camera collector here - that’s my hobby. I absolutely love photography; however, I am not a professional by any stretch of the imagination. I do though, fully understand and agree with your comments. Anyone who has a basic understanding of photography, knows that a good photograph can be made irrespective of sensor size or film quality. However, to present a detailed photograph, at the sizes you require for your clients as part of your business, the extra megapixels is a no brainer. Just to say, I have found your videos on the GFX100S, and others very informative. It has been a year or so since your last video and hope you will make another soon. All the best!
The new OM-1 is amazing! I would love to See It in action for weddings!
Full frame sensors used to cost more than the entry level full frame camera of today.
The cost problem is not sensor related.
The gf macro only lens costs 2700 USD.
The PC requirements for 100mpx images are bazoncas.
Nobody prints that kind of wall prints.
The recent introduction of high Mpx sensors into the consumer markets shows clearly the crisis in which the industry is landed.Trying to find added value is a problem these days : video , high Mpx , all these things a normal photographer doesn’t need in real life (except the niche markets )Abetter way is developing sensors with much better high iso performance.I don’t need 30 shots per second either!
There is a well known portrait photographer here in australia used a canon 5d, yes canon 5d mark 1. And her work was showed in a gallery, and it’s awesome you can’t even tell her work was shot with 5d.
5D mk1 is unique. Just not for action shots. Only center focus point is reliable
Totally agree. My first Fuji was the Fuji film x100 with 12 mp. I made several 24x36 prints that were amazing with 12mp. I still use all the x cameras but my new gfx 100s has the best image quality and ergonomics on the planet. The 100s 24x36 prints have jaw dropping details. Thank you for your great tube channel.
I don't think anybody should be left out when going for digital assets.
Investing in crypto is really profitable, been making good progress
Cryptocurrency is an incredibly speculative and volatile buy. That's why I work with Lucas Naved.
I lost some funds trading on a platform then I was referred to Lucas Naved. He recovered the loss and made an extra profit using his trade tactics
As a portrait photographer in the fine art portrait side of things, when I hear debate about megapixels 12 is enough to print 40X36 or 16-24 megapixels or an iPhone or Android that packs 100-200 megapixels and you have a medium format 102 resolution with insane detail not to mention, but you could pull out of it extraordinary color science that the Fuji GFX 100s gives you-there is no comparison.
People that has money, and they can afford the price compared to those that cannot those are two different type of clientele. Fuji GFX 100s is night and day compared to other formats. It’s like comparing a Bugatti to a Honda accord. It’s not the same.
When you can measure prints more easily in feet than in inches, that’s one key area where the GFX 100 series really shines. The crispness of detail in a five foot image can keep the viewer leaning in for more. That’s magic especially with the 16 bit color. I also have the flexibility in post to completely rethink a composition. Crop way down to a core subject and still have more than enough information to create a no compromise print at a smaller scale. It’s a more deliberate style of shooting however, which some will like more than others. Miles better than other larger than full frame systems, and for a lot less money, but quite slow by full frame standards.
What about Olympus?
I totally agree with your explanation! I am a Sony shooter and think if Sony would believe that 12MP can do everything, they would not bring out their R series or the new a1 with 50MP :-).
Hi Joseph. Do you no longer use Olympus for the photography side (not videography) of your wedding photo business?
One additional thought: high resolution allows more image processing with less loss in the resulting quality. I believe that for large prints something around 16 to 20 mp is enough - but that's the final image. To give room for processing a linear factor of around 1.5 is desirable. That leads to preferred camera resolutions of 36 to 80 mp. Add a few pixes for cropping and you end up with 100 mp optimal resolution. But for me, an 8k sensor with 45 mp would be totally fine.
In regards to Chris’s video and image comparison I’m not sure how they could not see the difference between 12 and 102 megapixel in the large print. Especially since they were viewing it at such a close distance. Just the spread of the pixels at such a large print you think you would easily be able to see the difference. Makes me wonder what he did to the GFX image. I have never viewed images like that in print side-by-side but with your experience do you find this believable?
Hi Joe, what's the reason that you have stopped creating photography videos here on UA-cam?
Was a part 2, had to watch. Good word
Where did you go? I may have missed something. I love your channel and philosophy. Did you change the camera lines? Do you have a new channel? Hope to hear from you. I live in the DFW area as well.
Dude does not care
Thanks for your thoughtful & well said Part 2 For me, I didn't take away the same msg from C. Hau's video as you; but I'm not a professional photographer & may have reacted differently if I were. As an older amateur, I shoot with Micro 4/3 & am pleased with the system but would in no way compare it to the GFX for large, detailed prints.
Joseph, good feedback ...
Thank you.
Now Canon is going to have R8 with 80 MPX for $5K body only.
I see how many people feel that 20MPX is enough. It is not ! if you print at 300dpi you are very limited. Also the fine detail is missing with 20 MPX.
is there a noticeable difference in image quality over say Olympus. i’m more interested in the colours - and not the resolution.
it would be great seeing photos you’ve taken over the years with what cameras and lenses were used.
I shit medium format back in the film era and she post cropping was a great option but i ended up preferring my 35mm with better glass . I understand the wanting to upgrade to better gear but happy for the time being with my canon 5d full frame and my compact daily carry Sony apsc for my social media uploads.
Your first sentence either contains a misspelling or an incredible skill that you could likely benefit from financially if you can still do it ;)
@@morrisbagnall2690 I caught that after posting it and figured I would give people a few laughs 🤭. Seriously between my dyslexic and autocorrect I don’t stand a chance 😂😂.
Joe, curious on your large prints (excellent concept btw) what medium are you using. Acrylic, metal, etc.?
Mostly acrylics - I love how they float on a wall and the color & sharpness is outstanding
Do you use a local lab in Dallas or another lab?
@@michaeldesselle7589 I use Gigantic Color in Dallas for many of my larger prints but also WHCC and Bumblejax depending on the job
@@JosephEllisPhotographer thank you!
Medium Format is a waste of time for me and probably 95% of people who own anything above a smartphone. I’m still shooting with a EM1 mkii and a couple of lenses. Probably cost around 3k for the lot. Medium format would be closer to 15k for the same setup. Great if it’s your profession or your a wealthy person, but the average photographer shooting candid snaps 🤔
I can see how those types of prints that you create would benefit from the maximum number of pixels and the associated resolution/dynamic range increases.
As you say, use what works for you and learn how to use it well.
Hello, I request you to make a video on your UA-cam channel regarding detailed settings for the camera GFX 100s. Thanks🙏
I think I know where your heading on that. I was looking at the Fujifilm medium format "advange", but all their zoom lenses are f/4 and most primes are f/2.
Is this another justification video for the needs of more megapixels and where does the craving stop 🛑
Either you didn't watch the video or you didn't understand it...
@@thestefsterbun1820 i think both for this commenter. Anyhow, both Sony and Canon are rumoured to be coming out with a 102MP full frame camera within the next year or two. Clearly, the big manufacturers believe there is a huge market for ultra-high megapixel cameras or else they would not have bothered. Personally, I do see a real benefit for high megapixel cameras, although not for every situations. I do mainly portraits, landscapes and lifestyle shoots, and what I shoot, even shooting my young kids do not require fast burst rates and out of this world AF tracking, so a high megapixel camera is like the GFX100S is great for me.
Looks like Fuji stopped this channel 😀😅😂
To put it bluntly, Chris and all those try hards have NFI
Many thanks for these helpful insights. It's really about the use case. Eg medium format is primarily not for wildlife, sports or some telephoto applications. Although most modern large sensors outperform smaller image sensors in terms of image quality, it's a misconception to believe that it's due to light gathering capabilities. For reference ua-cam.com/video/EDZ2ApqU-uA/v-deo.html
All this do you really need X talk is just people trying to feel better about not being able to afford the new gear by getting people to agree they don't need it. The same thing was said about 24mp when everyone was on like 8-12mp, it was said when the D800 came out at 36mp, the most of any camera below a PhasOne or Hasselblad system at the time, and now its being said about the next big jump in mp in a camera more than like 5 people can actually afford, the GFX 100S. Notice it wasn't really brought up about about the GFX 100. Why? Because it was so expensive no one felt like they had to justify why the gear they use is just as good or not lesser. But at the price of a flagship DSLR or MILC FF system, a GFX 100S is a real option for a lot of people so those who can't get one feel the need to defend what they do use. Yes some people legitimately don't need or want 102 mp. But Its' one thing to say "well I shoot events and do digital delivery only so I dont' need 102mp and the files sizes would clog up my work flow since I shoot 1000+ images regularly." But it's a whole different thing to make a video trying to say NO ONE needs 102 mp, even for large printing and that there is basically no difference in a print between 12mp and 102mp. That is either sour grapes on the part of the video maker or them just playing off of the sour grapes others have for Likes and Views.
Camera companys have to increas MP or they have no where to go and keep coming out with new cameras to get you to buy them. Just like computers reached there max speed and they had to add more cores to improve and keep selling more processors, same with MP and cameras. I dont find the need for 100mp and a $7000 camera for the lastest greatest thing. I think 90% of the photographers out there can get by with 24-42 MP and have no issues at all. The great Peter Coulson shoots a older hassleblad and sony a7r ii i believe and he puts manual focus lenses to achieve a film type look, he isnt trying to get crazzzzzzzzzzzzzzy sharp.
Smartphones are just about convenience. Convenience usually trumps quality. It's only when I show someone what I can be achieved, do people then realise the value of a high quality camera.
Thanks, can be understood but, please we'd like to see more pictures examples instead your own image speaking for so long. Cheers up
I think my biggest complaint about these videos is the lack of being objective. It's not 102 vs 12 it's102 over 12. No mention about 12MP being the best for low light. And ultimately a 24-60ish MP is going to be far better for 99% of photographers over a 102. I've had a D800 that gave me great high resolution photos but I always wanted to do better in low light. In the other video you cropped photos. Being old school has given me the mindset of framing my shot and not needing to "spray and pray". If I'm getting the shot I want then I don't need to crop. Also didn't like the little bit of "name calling" in the other one. Seemed cheap and makes the data less credible.
Good comparison with the "family in the landscape" type of photos. This guy did print comparisons ;), perhaps you can do a new updated one comparing prints of the big sensor cameras compared to prints from upsized smaller sensors? ua-cam.com/video/qQ1rzSReQ1A/v-deo.html
When you spend ten grand on new camera gear, it's important to justify that you made a good decision.
Goodbuy Joseph. Was nice to watch your videos,but as you moved on to multiple formats i need to unsubscribe as its not to my interest anymore. Enjoy your photography endevour for the future.