Fujifilm GFX100 VS Sony A7RIV: Is Full-Frame Good Enough?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- #GFX100 #A7RIV # Sony #Fujifilm
*The opening & closing segments were filmed on 23rd January before… the turning point
We know you want to know the answer. Highly debatable. Arguably the best full-frame camera on the market, the Sony A7RIV, against the medium format game changer, the Fujifilm GFX100. Is full-frame enough? Or is going medium format that much better?
Oooof. Tough call.
You decide.
Read more here
tech360.tv/rev...
Support us and get it on Amazon here
Fujifilm GFX100 - amzn.to/3eRa2yE
Sony A7RIV - amzn.to/3ilC47C
Shot on Canon
sg.canon/
Editor - Bobby Tonelli
Camera/Producer - Kai Hong
Video Editor - Hui Yee
To know more about Fujifilm
fujifilm-x.com...
To know more about Fujifilm GFX100
fujifilm-x.com...
To know more about Sony
www.sony.com.sg/
To know more about the Sony A7RIV
www.sony.com.s...
Check out Bobby Tonelli
/ btonelli
Follow us on
Facebook - / tech360tv
Instagram - / tech360.tv
Credits
Music - www.audiolibra...
Thanks to both Fujifilm Singapore and Sony Singapore for letting us try out the cameras
Decent review and pictures, but it doesn't really make sense to compare two different cameras without the same images or even comparative focal lengths captured on both of them. Comparing an image captured with a 135mm lens and another even of the same subject captured with a 32-64mm lens will show drastically different results, even with the same camera.
Image quality is image quality. As I said this wasn’t a scientific review but more real world.
@@TECH360TV I mean, you know thats not honest. A zoom lens on one camera and a prime on the other....theres going to be a difference
@@TECH360TV Still not really helpful for people to compare and contrast the different cameras if settings are different.
Setting per setting is different when comparing medium format vs full frame
@@TECH360TV meant photography setting/situation, not image settings.
I'm wondering for your portrait example: It seems your lighting conditions are totally different. Also what f-stop did you shoot at? because that can effect focus as well. I've used the 24-70 G-Master lens with my A7r IV and it was incredibly sharp. But if you shoot with the lens wide open you can end up with one I sharp but the tip of the nose out of focus.
It doesn't mean as much when you're comparing very different lighting scenarios at different apertures. The Fuji sensor is really nice, though, and definitely makes sense for some pros. I'd love to own a medium format camera some day. I bet even more compelling options will be available within the next five years.
Understand your point but It’s difficult to compare medium format to full frame nailing the exact aperture etc.
Even then you need to also compare lenses. Sony makes some great lenses but not all can handle the 61MP sensor of the A7RIV. This is why i decided to take a more non scientific approach to the review. Yes Medium Format will improve like everything over time.
Thanks but it's not usefull since we can't see direct comparison. You can't compare skin tones from images with different lightning like you did first. It's not serious.
Lighting was the same. Just different how the image was taken.
There is no perceivable difference between 14-bit and 16-bit.. the difference is in your editing. And I'm sorry but I don't think that you have a monitor higher than 12-bit so there is no possibility that you can see a difference between 14-bit and 16-bit. I'm sorry but this is BS. Not to mention that the final image that the viewer is going to see will be in 8-bit color..
Perfect been waiting for this comparison i can’t believe its taken so long for a reviewer to do this properly thank you!
Thanks for watching
@@TECH360TV But is the fuji worth almost 3x the price of the sony?
Buddy, it's hard to tell the difference between two cameras. Because in this case different lenses, different focal lengths and different photographic situations are used. 🤔
When he said 575Mb 😱
Yep. That was my look when I saw it too haha
The gfx line up is the future of fujifilm. In a few years they should catching up with full frame speed.
I wouldn't mind seeing that actually. The GFX100 is the beginning of that
The "3D-pop" of "medium format":
If you regard the picture of the Rottweiler sitting in the gras and cut away a part of the sky and the background at the right side, then suddenly your "medium format" has only the size of fullframe. So, vanishes the spezial 3d-look as soon as one crops the pictures?
Gfx would be best for macro as it is sharper than 🔪
What macro lens is best for the GFX 100?
at 1:1 and higher, I fear that the focal plane would be super shallow, I know this coming from apsc to full frame and things got allot harder at 1:1 2:1 magnification due to a reduced focal area at say f8. Ok if you are doing close ups though... Saying that, Fuji dont even do a true GF macro lens, only 0.5x. They do offer an extension, but i found apsc fuji extensions a ball ache.
@@wolfcoding There is no true macro lens for the GFX, the GF 120mm f4 is only a 0.5x unfortunately...
I think the gfx is a better camera, but the dog photos with an iso 800 vs a iso 100 doesn't seem very comparable. Did you see less of a difference with base iso? I know we're nitpicking, but that's kinda what we're doing here. Great comparison. I've been waiting for this video for a long time. Thanks for the great work
Fair question. Through various ISO settings I found the results the same as the video. The GFX produced sharper images, but it comes down to the lens. Most of the older Sony lenses weren’t designed for this type of resolution IMO hence why we see the limitations to the image. The 135, 24 and the newer telephoto lenses will be better for the A7RIV. Even the new Tamron 70-180 would be good I feel. Thanks for watching, much appreciated
@@TECH360TV great content. Thanks for the clarification
No prob.
I didn’t know Timothy Olyphant reviewed cameras, loved you in Deadwood!
Haha thanks. Let me know if you know where that Deadwood check went, because UA-cam isn’t paying the rent so far 🤣
@@TECH360TV It went into making that horrible last season of GOT lol
😂😂😂
Fuji stands out in all departments but what really strikes me is the tonal range!! Wow, that is exquisite! I will have to make a plan. Thanking you.
My pleasure. Thanks for watching
unfocused photos with ff at 800 iso. focused photos at 100 iso medium format? wtf is this comparison? and faded blacks in ff??? wtf dude? you make a smaller dr even smaller?
The tonal range on a medium format can't be beat by a full-frame camera. You'll see the difference when you print.
agree
Fujifilm lenses are supper sharp no mitch for sony lenses ... I love my sony ariv put no mitch for fujifilm GFX 100...
Just subscribed, beautiful content.
How does the GFX 100 do as sports/wildlife camera? how does it hold up with something like Canon 1DX iii?
Thank you for the sub and compliment. You can see some sports shots in my other video on the GFX100. It can do both but of course you need to find the right settings to make it work. Now compared to the 1DX mark III the Canon has superior autofocus and speed but they are two different cameras. However having said that I was surprised by how versatile the GFX is.
Who will purchase camera ie Fuji film 100 for image quality what about sports u ckc and tell me
GFX100 is the king camera on the market now.
Also I wish you could use Capture 1 for GFX100 because it makes huge difference for FUJI
I did for a while. Yes it does make a difference but I don’t always work on a desktop and capture one doesn’t have a mobile platform yet.
Nah that would be phase one‘s lineup
Fukurokujo Phase 1 is overpriced , slow , bulky camera company
Colors are still superior on a full frame 645 sensor.. especially a CCD 16bit medium format sensor
Agreed with you, wating for the right price. Perhaps this year I will try to upgrade my 50r
Yes waiting for the prices to come down as well. However the sales of the GFX100 have been surprisingly good considering the price point.
Thanks or sharing. Great review but the annoying background music is absolutely killing the video
Understand. We have amended since
I think you should really try the sigma 105/1.4 on the A7Riv....
Would love to. It’s one lens I’m excited to try sometime
Try it on the GFX instead- it is one of my go to lenses for fashion work - with a Steelsring adaptor it is ace - better than the 110mm
I honestly own both, the best idea really. When I shoot the GFX on a tripod, no IS with a cable release the results are staggering, a full length model shot has tack sharp eyelashes when you pixel peep. My a7R4 cant do that
True. The images are staggering.
I truly love how much info are in the a7riv files. They are very flexible to adjust while editing. Great dynamic range. And the Sony 135mm f1.8 GM is one of the best lenses I have ever used. I would love to try out medium format just to see the difference between the two firsthand. I was thinking about the GFX 100s and the gf 250 f4 and the gf 110 f2 would be perfect for my needs. Maybe at the end of the year I might add them to my collection
I think I am in a similar situation as you are. I have A7RIV and a large collection of E mount lenses, a lot of Sigma primes 24mm, 28mm, 40mm, 85mm and 105mm, Sony GM F1.8, Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8. Fuji MF is a large investment when you considered the price of these collection of lenses. I probably will buy about 3 lenses 45-100mm, 100-200mm and 110mm F2 or 80mm F1.7. I probably will use the camera wit a lot of manual lenses. I think this is a camera that I will take more time with my composition than I do with Sony.
i didn't care for how the gfx 100 looked. i thought the sony looked better
Is the gfx 100 usable for moving subjects or is the rolling shutter too bad?
It’s usable.
thanks for the great video as always!
this video really help answer the questions in my head - in short, Hard Pass On GFX100 and a7Riv.
- GFX100 is just too bulky to be using it for outdoor shoots.
- a7Riv's image quality is good enough, and by that logic, a7Riii's image quality is also acceptable.
- I will save up my money for the next generation of cameras that will probably be coming out in around 12-18 months.
GFX100 is the same size as a 1DX or D5/6. For some that’s okay, others want something smaller. In terms of the next tech in cameras, I think we will see that in the Canon R5.
The dynamic range is very close, and the Sony has faster glass which let's in more light and allows for cleaner images, especially when using the zooms (f4 vs f2,8). In low light scenarios the Sony is preferable. Out in the sun the Fuji is preferable.
How is the auto white balance and which camera will give me the largest amount of useable shots? That is the most important to me. My experience with Fujifilm cameras (X-t1, X-t2, X-e3) is unfortunately that the auto white balance is way off quite often, which gives me more work in post production. Maybe that's not the case with the GFX line?
One thing to take into consideration is that f4 on medium format does not perform the same way as on full frame. It’s equivalent to around 3.2 there abouts.
I find the GFX gave me cleaner images slightly than the Sony. As for WB I give it to the GFX as well. Sony seems to be slightly off of what I see. It’s correctible of course but I found more consistency with the GFX.
The fastest glass For the GFX currently is f2.0 which gives you the performance of a 1.4 there about.
@@TECH360TV This is incorrect (50%). Yes, the depth of field/zone of focus is more shallow on the larger sensor. F4 on a larger sensor will give a totally different DOF from a 35mm frame. However! in terms of light transmission an F4 is an F4 a F2.8 is an F2.8. You're not getting MORE light on larger sensors, you're getting. shallower DOF. So the original commenter has a point - on 35mm you a stop advantage in terms of light. On medium format you get a stop different in sharpness of medium format).
@Gap No I mean Fstops. T-stops are used mainly on Cinema lenses where T-Stop IS the actual light hitting the lens not the aperture opening size. Fstop is strictly the aperture size opening but F2.8 on two different lens designs doesn't mean the same light hitting the sensor.
The problem with all these Fuji GFX vs some fullframe videos is always the same. They all come from a GFX guy that rents ie a Sony A7RIV and couples it with a shitty zoom like the 24-70GM. While the GFX will be shot with some 3-4k prime. What you are comparing then are lenses, not bodies. There are quite a few GM primes now that can really push the RIV (24, 35, 50, 135, 20G, Zeiss 50, some Sigmas), the 24-70GM is miles away from that quality, so a comparison based on it is unfortunately useless..
Regardless Sony cameras are junk
@@Joshua97776 thank you for your insightful contribution!
@@nikolai_art 😉
You’re so right about Sony 135 f1.8 GM. It took breathtaking photos on my a7rIV. Sadly no other Sony lens could match it (maybe 24 f1.4)
Yeah the 135 is fantastic. The 24 and new 35 are also really good as well
The 50 F/1.2 gm does… and dare I say exceeds the 135 gm
I think that the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN would give the 135 a run for it's money.
Perhaps but the 135 is really a good lens
@@TECH360TV So I've read, but mine is flat-out the sharpest lens that I've ever used. :-) Makes me question the 90mm F3.2 that I ordered for my Hasselblad.
Nice photos!
Hi great video thanks. I am not 100% sure I agree with you. The beauty of the skin tones color tonality might not have (everything) to do with the camera being medium format, or the amount of pixels. The Sony doesn't look that great because, well, is a Sony. They have never had fantastic skin tones and they are barely starting to catch up. The AMAZING and old 6/12MP Fuji S5 Pro will look way better than the 61MP Sony. Is all about the color science, not sensor size.
The images of your dog look better on sony then Fujii
GFX 100 destroys the SONY. Sony is not even close. The Fuji's files are just so much more immersive.
As they should be. Medium format vs fulll frame
Great practical comparison without going into the technical depths. The lenses make the difference, but this is exactly the advantage and biggest weakness of the Fuji, as there are no large wide angle and telephoto lenses. If you use the battery grip on the Sony and the large GM lenses, the system size is not much smaller than on the Fuji. However, due to the price, the Fuji is only interesting for professionals; for everyone else, the Sony is just within affordable range.
Thanks for watching. Fujifilm has a 23mm lens that’s equivalent to 18mm for full frame. Telephoto they have a 250 with a 1.4x teleconverter. So there is something there. It comes down to preference and of course price. The GFX100 is definitely more pricey so you need to see if that image quality is a necessity.
do you think $3500 is for anyone else? Both cameras are expensive, I bough the A7RIV with 2 GM lens almost rip my bank account
You are an honest photographer. We know gfx has about 70% bigger sensor, so it has better picture quality.
Thanks and yes it does but there are many who are discussing these two cameras so we thought it would be good to put them to the test
Comparison is not that useful. Take the same shots
Perfect review of side by side images between the 2 cams. Thks
Thanks for watching
Hi 👋
I shoot portraits and concerts. Image quality is important to me. I shoot mostly for hobby purposes. I am using Fujifilm Xt4 but the image quality is not happy. I'm thinking of the medium format Fujifilm 50 S II, but the camera's AF point is slow and the focus is slow compared to the aps c sensor and full frame, and the camera's lenses are very expensive …. I'm considering Sony A7 R IV for reasons such as:
Sony A7 R IV is an old model but we see successful business results in the photo . What do you think would be the right choice between the 2 machines? Thank you.
I think if you are looking for a camera system then it is a bit hard to pass A7 Riv. The reason for that is it does have 61mp sensor, a large collection of E mount lenses from Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, Samyang etc. But there are other full frame alternatives like Canon R5/R5C and Nikon Z7ii but you have to considered the cost of RF and Z mount lenses, the cost of native RF lenses are more expensive and their price won't drop drastically until we see Tamron or Sigma were allowed to compete with their RF mount lenses. Giving this is a hobby of yours you probably want to experienment with different type of photography, you might like to shoot picture of your favorite players at a basketball game or a tennis match or a soccer match, you might like to shoot wild life, or you might like to shoot photos of your fast moving kids. This is where the fast continuous auto focus, focus tracking, things like human eye/animal eye auto focus become really handy.
Full frame vs fuller frame?
Vs fullest frame 😊
Great video, im also connected with Allen and did an interview with him and Claire in 360.
Perhaps we could do a collaboration.
this comparison.. I bet a blind test on minimally edited images in a 8K display or print would fall squared on 50%..
Great vid but that music just kills it.
sony have fack sharp i dont like
No apples to apples comparison.
Yeah, I dont really see it man. I mean, doesn't the human eye only see 8bit? WE can't distinguish past 8bit? I use the A7RIV and have used the Phase One platform and the Sony has really really caught up big time. I think there's a lot of useful stuff that would help in a medium format platform like immense possibilities to crop. But is it worth 3,000 vs 10,000 bucks? nah
Theoretically yes but we can distinguish the differences especially when viewing the content on the proper medium.
Price is subjective depending on ones needs. Sony tends to have a lot more noise at lower iso due to the pixel size, also some of the Sony lenses can’t take advantage of the A7RIV sensor yet.
As usual, a waste of my time. No comparisons? Same subject with the same lighting, side by side so we can see the difference? Like, duh when doing a comparison.
I mentioned that this isn’t a scientific comparison in the video. It was more of an overall image quality comparison.
FF is good enough when they stick to around 30-40mp. After that it's time to jump to MF. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on FF sensors.
Yes the tech has reached its limit unless cameras start adding incorporating computational photography into the mix to push these sensors beyond their limits
Gfx100s is coming at 6k dollars
Haha that’s what the rumours say. Will have to find out
@@TECH360TV Rumors came out true. Can confirm.
Fuji wins
what are your thoughts comparing the a7riv to the GFX50r?
While the Sony would be equal to the Fujifilm in detail etc the Sony lenses in my opinion outside of the 24 1.4 and 135 1.8 can’t match the fujifilm lenses thus the overall image to me would still look better on the Fujifilm. Outside of that, speed performance etc go to Sony
@@TECH360TV Owing to the fact that all GF lenses resolve at 100+MPX!!!!
Fun video and comparison. Between the images shared, I think I prefer the a7r4. I think both cameras likely yield pleasing results to most photographers shooting RAW with their lens of preference.
Nice review, thanks. I think the difference between Sony FF and FUJI MF results are not that much IQ - assuming that you use the proper and same focal length lens for both camera - but rather the use case capability. Try the GFX100 kit bring around the whole day on a hiking or city tour, or capture a subject faster than a snail and you will immediately see the price of the higher resolution, dynamic range and slightly better color tonality. The unavailability of Fuji glass and the price point difference are just the cherry on top.
The release of GFX100S and Sony A1 I guess did not change the fact that these cameras are still for rather different shooters, nevertheless, I would not mind if you could repeat the comaprative review using these new bodies.
Any chance we could have the raw photos of your friend (the first demonstration in this video)? I can't help but believe the Sony's colors can be improved. The GFX 100 image is an all around better image, composition-wise, than the Sony in this case. The colors can easily be corrected in post, and the difference in dynamic range is negligble. As for tonal range, unless you're shooting 16-bit TIFs (~590MB) I don't see how they differ that much. I shoot the GFX 50S, used to shoot an A7RIV, and I'd say the colors are about the same. I don't see any improvements in the Fuji, unless we're talking JPEG rendering preference. Anyway, I think some images were much better edited than others, and that's really the only reason some images are better than others. You could easily get good colors with any camera raw these days, 24MP or 102MP, APS-C or medium format -- doesn't matter.
Edit: you guys need to read up on the Zeiss "pop." Didn't see it here. It's mostly a function of distance to subject, distance to background/foreground, and aperture. Really has nothing to do with medium format. :P
We don’t have the ability to share raw photos yet. Perhaps in the future. Sony can do a much better job with the right lenses. Unfortunately we didn’t have access to the 135 and 24 for that long in this review.
Yes aware of the Zeiss pop but doesn’t have anything to do with this video as we didn’t have any of the Otus lenses to compare.
As for color there Is a definite difference. Some images edit better than others because of that base color difference. Fujifilm for me isn’t the best out of camera but it’s base color are easy to get what you want. Sony can as well but takes more work especially with skin tones.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Fuji is playing with color science. That is all. They just software their processors to give warmer images. They do what ARRI does in video. Other brands give the neutral color science because they know photographers shoot in raw and therefore can choose the color science they want.
What are you referring to
@@TECH360TV By color science I am referring to the tone of Fuji images. They do what Canon is well known for and criticized for, producing colors that are shifted slightly towards warm rather than true color. In other words, Fuji's images make you think your White Balance is set at 3200 at high noon an a clear summer day. Soon you get on to that and you reject the images. Nikon and Hasselblad software prefer nothing: they give you exact RGB. Fuji is more pleasing initially but you grow tired of their look because it is not natural. Compare Fuji to Hasselblad and you will see what I mean. The Hassie looks natural and you can look at their images longer without thinking "maybe I don't like it anymore". You have another huge misunderstanding: You keep mentioning the huge 102 MP that Fuji GFX has, and attributing that to addition detail. However, what you fail to understand is this: (1) Fuji sensor is 43.8mm x 32.9mm = 1,441.02 sq-mm, (2) Sony sensor is 35.7mm x 23.8mm = 849.66 sq-mm (3) 1441.02/849.66 = 1.696. The Fuji sensor is 169.6% larger than Sony. Sony sensor is 62.5 MP, Fuji sensor is 102 MP but it needs to be 106 MP in order to have the same pixel density as Sony. In other words, Sony has more pixels that Fuji. Sony is more detailed than Fuji when apples to apple are considered. If you are seeing smoother gradation in Fuji images it is because of their 16-bit depth color versus Sony's 14-bit depth. I prefer medium format look too. But right now, Hassie (aka, The Blad) is the sovereign because of their true color. I even prefer Nikon's color science to Fuji. Go and compare the Fuji images next to Nikon D850 images. There is a UA-camr whose done that.
I agree on Nikon and Hasselblad’s color science however for Hasselblad, it has a hard time with reds. Sometimes they are blown out and you lose details in it. Nikon is fantastic and a joy to shoot with.
Yes Fujifilm colours can be tricky at times and Sony even more so.
The detail also has to do with the sensor and lens combo. Fujifilm excels here where Sony only has a few that match to the capabilities of the sensor.
Additionally the Sony struggles more in Low light than Fujifilm GFX100.
Good and interesting idea but unfortunately poor execution ..
We are always open to idea to improve but a statement like that doesn’t help anyone
@@TECH360TV I think that you know what I mean.
This review should be more consistent instead of being all over the place.
Your photos are even hard to compare, your dog is great subject but you photograph him in completely different scenarios, where even the same camera would look completely different..
The colors of the GFX 100 doesn't look so great as you say, just look ar the face portraits how greenish the skin tones look like in the partial shadows etc.
You could also compare dynamic range more accordingly as playing back and forward with the clipped highlights of the sky and particularly white clouds doesn't look too good on the GFX.
It doesn't have to be very scientific , but should be more precisely compared, as it doesn't give the justice to any of these cameras in my opinion..
You could show advantages of the lenses for example for landscape where "medium format gives you less distortion, sharper corners, different look, while FF gives you speed more telephoto options etc
Maybe compare the Hi res mode from Sony FF to MF for static subjects etc.
Relaxed "reviews" are good but this one was " too relaxed" if you know what I mean..
Thanks for the comment. A couple things to address, skin tones on my monitor and additional screens doesn’t have a green cast to it. Maybe need to check your calibrations. Yes I could do exact images but the problem we have is that unlike full frame it’s difficult to get the same focal length and aperture so instead of going down that road of a more clinical comparison, I went with overall image quality.
Dude I can't agree with you, I've tested both side by side at same scenario, they gave me exact same dynamic range when you look at them at 1:1. One important thing to remember, they both are Sony made sensors and they've exact same pixel size . But if course you can always downscale the 102mp file to 61mp and outperform A7R4 in this regard
Interesting. I found the dynamic range slightly better on the Fujifilm from my experience with it. Was it a big difference, not quite but it was noticeable.
😂😂😂 do an Apples to apples comparison... Apples to Pineapples..
Shouldn‘t the dynamic range of that fuji be a lot worse at 7.5 stops vs the 15 stops on the a7rIV?
Medium format vs full frame. While sharing a lot of the same sensor tech size also comes into play
GFX100 prosumer? Excuses me? What about the top end of professional segment?
Prosumer. Because you have the phase ones out there that are in a different level and price point
@@TECH360TV Hello, thank you for your reply. It most certainly is at a different price point, but medium format is almost solely used for professional work such as estate photography, flash photography, portraiture, archival work, product photography. The GFX is almost the same IQ as the Phase One so I would categorise them both as high end pro camera's. The fact that the GFX is a lot cheaper does not influence the category at all. It just means that Fuji has an awesome price point :)
Bad review could’ve at least used the relative focal lengths
How with medium format and full frame.
@@TECH360TV can u compare 120mm f4 macro of fuji with gfx 100 vs 90mm f2.8 macro of sony with a7riv
Understand, but I don’t have access to any lens I would like. Hope you understand
@@TECH360TV ok 👍👍
Bro, you can never compared crop sensor to fullframe,. Its night and day,. Fullframe will be the best vs crop sensor,. Same in Medium format,. Fullframe cannot win on a medium format sensor,.
What size blow up would you start seeing quite a bit of difference in the resolution between the two cameras
Really great video. Thanks.
Thanks - excellent video. I went from the Hasselblad X1D to the Leica SL2 and am wondering if I gave up anything significant in terms of image quality, or if the “medium format look” is more in my head. But perhaps the GFX100 is noticeably better than the older generation sensor of the X1D and the GFX-50S (which I also used)?
Yes it is better. The performance of the camera feels like a full frame camera in terms of speed.
The SL2 is a fantastic camera. Has some focusing challenges at times because it’s contrast based, but the IQ is really impressive
I feel you went into this review already deciding the GFX was better, I have seen very realistic portraits with the A7Riii, I think your human shot would of been fairer with equivalent lens and identical lighting+equalised exposure.
16 bit and 101MP and Medium Format vs 61 MP. It’s not rocket science to be honest.
When trying to match full frame lenses with Medium Format lenses it’s always challenging. I prefer not to use studio setting and use natural light.
@@TECH360TV 16bit vs 14bit is not as clear as some people might think, eyes are pretty poor at perceiving colour differences in all but the colour green.
I wonder how many people could actually tell the difference in 2 pictures in 14 an 16bit, even side by side?, that might be a good video.
As for the mp's, thats an old chestnut, however having used the A7Riii for a few weeks I know its a pain sometimes to move large numbers of high res pictures and I have a powerful PC, how many mp's would make you stop and think "I have enough" ?
@@engjds I agree, and I wonder if Fuji was smart enough to offer a lower resolution RAW otion. I know Sony was not smart enough to offer this. Canon does, as such a cost, you want to use the tool in a flexible manner, and not always needing 61 or 100mpixel on a portable camera. My PhaseOne back does not offer this, but it IS for a specific studio use more than pack and go use. If looking into MF, I would go with the largest sensor size possible, not necessarily pixel count. I use the MF on a 4x5 and this makes a drastic difference in how photos look. Compression is almost everything :-)
this should have featured the GFX 50R with it's 51.4 sensor instead of the GFX 100....
Not really as the current GFX Sensor is based off of the A7RIV specs but larger and more megapixels.
Understand.
Very interesting and enjoyable as ever, despite my Leica loyalties.
Thanks for watching. We all have our favourites but good to see what other cameras are capable of 😊
why not comparing to the 50r?
Foto Mats because the GFX100 is newer
@Chris Loomis in certain situations the IQ of 50R & 50S is better than that of GFX 100 !
Yes I’ve noticed that too. Colors etc
@@TECH360TV Yes, and the GFX 1000 shows occasionally some banding when you bring up the shadows more than 2-3 ev ...
I like how you acknowledged you didn't use the sharpest lens 9n the sony, but I hope you do a comparison with a better lens in the sony
I would love to. Prob is Sony here in Singapore doesn’t have a lot of the lenses available for review so it’s challenging
TECH360.TV try the 135mm gm thats the sharpest lens on sony, voigtländers 65mm should work too
Trying to rob a banl
Dude many thanks for putting this video, my first hands on with GFX100 was at last Photo Plus and man it put me thinking why I still using my A7RIV for my weddings as the main camera... maybe because of $$$, let's see maybe by end of the year I move to medium format
I think you might be impressed how versatile it is. Especially for weddings. You can use the JPEGs and still have good latitude for edited
You'll miss the sony autofocus
Useless test ever
Thanks.
"Tonality" is a fake term in imaging. At least it can't be quantified. There's no magic in medium format. It's the lenses. Their bigger, slower, and better corrected.
The Fuji "medium" format is silly ad you have way less advanced features compared to the Sony and the lenses for it are too slow to the point that you get more dof control with the Sony and faster lenses, which would normally be a benefit of the bigger MF sensor
We are all entitled to our opinion but having used both I disagree with some of your points
The versatility of FF is legendary, MF is a niche appreciated more by photography snobs than the real enthusiast. In reality there is no difference in the amount of light falling on both sensors or an APS-C or even smaller sensors, given the right conditions you can create magic with almost any modern day camera, it’s all an illusion to make you spend more money.
While I agree with your last point I disagree with your categorisation of MF. It’s used for optimal image quality, tonality and color depth. There is a reason it’s used for ads, product shots , architecture photos etc all over the world. The image quality is still superior to full frame.
500 mb tiff file for one photo? That’s a no go for me
Hahaha it’s taxing on the system
How bout smartphones camera comparison?😏
The latest flagships of 2020😍
muhammad aidil we Will
At 0:15 I found an Indian and I am frm India 🇮🇳🙏🙏
Great Indian community here in Singapore
@@TECH360TV Bro I just Request You to Visit India Once and Try the gfx 100 and The a7riv , It's An Awesome Country to shoot where you find everything Like landscapes , Greeneryies , Potraits , streets it's Truely awesome please visit I hope you will reply 😊🇮🇳🇮🇳🙏
@@TECH360TV Bro I am From India and I have ordered a Hasselblad 500c + Digital Back phaseonexf got this all at 3000$ And it is Truely Amazing big brother it is a Georges camera I beg you to try the Hasselblad 500s once 🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🇮🇳🇮🇳🙏
@@TECH360TV Actually my Grandpa lives In Singapore India Street There are nearly about 20k Indians 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🙏🙏🙏
Wouldn’t mind trying that setup
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If you really want the best, go with the last phase one digital back, you will cry when you'll see the details!
Shot with it. Amazing camera but not really for consumers.
@@TECH360TV yes of course, but I think that the GFX100 is also a prosumer camera. Despite it's "low price" that powerful beast is a non sense for consumers, which consumer need 16bits/100MP? For which applications? I think these sensors are made for real specific needs
/jobs, for clients that demand the best (product shot, fashion key visual...), for huge prints (ads campaign...) or specific fine art artists. But if you really want my honest opinion, a GFX 50s/r or an IQ250 can make the job too.
I wouldn’t consider a phase One IQ4 a prosumer camera per say, but the term could be argued both ways.
I agree with the 50R, but the IBIS and faster autofocus plus great 4K video really gives someone who needs it the almost best of everything.
And cry when you see the price!
Who is trying to choose between an A7rIV and a Phase One?
You can use every lens in the Fuji X-system with outstanding results on a X-camera in half the price of a Sony-shi...☝️ and every GFX50R blows the Sony away🌬 . Sony is more marketing than quality and have no soul.
wow. hater alarm xD
Um, relax lol