Gotta love all the exaggeration of the Medium Format look, i have been playing both MF and FF together for a while myself and not sure if it's even worth to give up so much to gain so little, the AF tracking, the frame rate, the overall responsiveness of the system, even the latest GFX100S II doesn't come even close to the top tier FF in term of focusing, and FF also have a lot of F1.2/1.4 glasses available if you need the shallow DOF, while fastest lens in MF is F1.7, so there you go with the so called shallow DOF advantage, while I have not exhaust the noise/DR capabilities of the FF, now I have to give up all the AF performance on every single shot to gain the benefit I need once in a blue moon. " i mean coming from Z9 and A1, teh focusing on GFX100S II is not just frustrating but painful to say the least, clients" don't have access to the side by side comparison of the MF-FF-APC and zoom in 200% on their screen and say " wow, love this MF look", it's only in the head of the one behind the camera.
Compared 50R / 100s with Nikon Z7 II with Sigma and Nikkor Lenses: tonal richness is THE unbeatable feature of medium format. There's no way back, once you came down to "paint" pictures with sky colors and grab the abundance of colorful nature or technical structures with tons of shades and smooth transitions. NO way back.
GFX highlight roll-off is smooth and soft, which is very pleasing to the eye. After enjoying GFX images, Sony looks like shot on iPhone - they have a more digital look and less life In them.
Terrific video! Subtle differences between the two but the great thing there are options for different photographers. I love the camera strap on the Fuji. Do you happen to know the brand? It’s exactly what I’ve been searching for. Thanks!
Automatic like for the cleverness of the title alone : ) I liked a lot the photos with the Fujifilm. In part the colors that, maybe is placebo effect, look deeper or denser, and in part because 4:3 aspect ratio looks more professional, like made for magazine.
hehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, medium format still have color in highlight or shadow, why you cant see ittt????????????????????????????????? compare medium with full frame, waste time
GFX all the way if you are in the MF channel/forum, and A7RV is a no brainer if you are in the FF/Sony channel/forum. i shoot both but my answer to you is try both and see it for your own eyes, you gotta love all the exaggeration from both camp on internet.
Thanks for this helpful video. I've been contemplating the purchase of the GFX50SII not the GFX100S but it is the format size and resulting IQ that I want to see. I do not find the outcomes shown here as persuasive to make me think the GFX50SII or large format camera has the necessary step up in IQ to justify such a move. Yet, I'm still attracted to the GFX format. I reckon the best way to find out is to buy and try but the risk of rejection and therefore financial loss seems very high in my estimation.
I can tell you as somebody who shoots with both an A7RIVa and GFX 100S, there are some major differences between the images. I have very little work to do with the GFX images in capture one. They are absolutely stunning pretty much straight out of camera - RAW or JPEG. The buttery smooth transitions from highlights to shadows are gorgeous. Oh, and the in-camera raw processing is insanely cool if I'm on the go and don't have time to edit on my mac.
Sorry dude, if you arent using equivalent focal length lenses and compensate by changing subject distance, you are comparing apples to oranges, because your perspectives FOV/distortions dont match. So all these comparisons are basically dominated by which is the more appropriate focal length to use, regardless of which camera it is. Congrats on messing that up.
Have you tried the Pentax 645z? It's a few years old now but works well with the old 645 lenses. It's the closest medium format look in digital I can get.
I like sony fullframe vs gfx comparison, but when i see GFX with fullframe lens it’s not appropriate i think, so we can’t see the true differences Sony 50 gm vs 63mm GF lense Thank you for your review, i am always ejoy watching it!
oh yeah, I feel you. Tested 63mm back in the day and was not very impressed, as it's very slow lens f/2.8, so FF equivalent is 50mm f/2.2. Not even close to what 50/1.2 produces on FF, hence I chose different lens for this test in order to try to beat that 50/1.2 on FF.
its hard to see a difference unless we go 1/1.2 /1.4 lenses with the GFX . The 1.8/2.0 GFX lenses would generally look the same as fullframe 1.4/1.2 . SO the only real advantage of GFX would be clean and crisp 100mp images. Maybe if you crop the Sony images to a 4:3 ratio - the difference will be bigger. ANd it al comes down to preference - if you like 4:3 go with GFX. If prefer 2:3 , save the money and go with a fullframe.
The difference between these photos are basically the difference between a sharp lens and an extra sharp lens... no one, absolutely no one, but the photographer will see the difference.
What you should do is a scientific comparison with equivalent native lenses. Not an adapted 35mm lens. Or at least use the same lens on the Sony. Surely?
Everything works - including AF, and it does transfer the information to the file, which is great too. And to change aperture you just turn the ring on the adapter itself. Pretty neat!
Love the comparison - and honestly, I strongly prefer images from the Sony when compared side by side and can't see much of a difference in terms of any effect from sensor size. 645 format film is a bit larger than the GFX, which is probably, in part, why.
good video! I hope you can make another gfx video with mitakon 65mm 1.4 lens and ofc compare it to other lens . It should be interesting. Love your video and I enjoy watch it !
Skin tones is really the only obvious thing I see. The gfx looks flat compared to the Sony. Also the Sony looked to have been 1/3 stop too bright, if like to have seen an exact comparison or dropped the exposure a little. But all in all a client wouldn’t tell. I love the GFX, but I could buy 2 or 3x Sony a7iv’s for the price of 1 GFX and for weddings that a client will only put on instagram, I can’t see the reason to pay the amount, for portrait editorial, then yes, the fuji
I shoot Nikon, so I am unbiased. Liking the Sony for so many reasons. I shoot weddings, seeing the difference it is negligible. For my purpose GFX is overkill with loss of speed and from these images colour.
Sony’s pictures is much better.. but if your talking about the bokeh and wideness of the picture Fuji is better. The look on Sony is more pleasing however
The not mentioned joke is that all these cameras nowadays could long ago allready offer free configurable viewfinder cropping. "Full frame" sensor really should be 40 x 40 mm or so, allowing square 33x33 square or so instead of stupid 24x24, and "narrow" panorama, also same aspect ratio as "medium format" (also a BS nomenclatura), etc, and allow options how to switch horizontal to vertical without turning the camrra, even swiveling autolevelling -without having to redesign the lense's covering. BTW I see no reason for saying that fuji has to be taken for it's better image quality. none. Because it is not. And is less practical and has less lenses and is slower. But if someone prefers it's handling and the above is of. no concern, then yes. Sadly, competition is necessary.
@@BenHowlandPhoto Com'on ! (My proposition is roughly the same surface than those so (falsly) called Medium Format Cameras 30x45. And no need to redesign any lenses or habits.- and they would sell more cameras because much more practical and versatile without changing system gear). Regarding your "substantiousally more expensive" : are You referring to Laica S2 and S3, Fuji MF, Hasselblad, all these non-sens engeneers there, perhaps? You could be right since they have to re-engineer their own (slower) lenses that they have to build for far less users who enjoy les competition versatility for far more money.....
To be honest you are not using the sensor in it’s maximum capabilities by using a sigma lenses on a “medium format sensor”. I’d rather applaud your effort if you use a medium format manual lenses on this camera. I’ve seen the other channel using medium format lenses and it came out way better than your shots.
Starting a video with 'What's up everyone' just sounds dumb. We are not all Americans, and asking a question that is not meant to be answered, just because every other sheep starts their video that way, is well, like just being a sheep really. Think about why you are saying it, what purpose and value it has and then ask yourself is it appropriate and would there be many other better options for welcoming your viewers and introducing yourself. Like the Sesame Street t-shirt, it is a lame attempt to come across as a modern version of cool and interesting, yet your viewers generally will not perceive them that way and often such gimmicks become negatives, rather than positives that the content creator is aiming for. Be more real and authentic would be my top tip, and just speak to people naturally. Don't show subscription or ads unless they only appear in the last quater of the video and only when you have earned the privilege of interrupting your viewers with content they did not click on and choose to watch.
Some people really think that by clicking on a video they did an incredible favor to the person who recorded it. Someone spends hours making a video that gives you some value, but there will be a stragglers who thinks they would have done it differently. If you know how to do it, it's better to create your own channel and do it your way, and if you don't like it, don't watch it.
When compared side by side like this, the highlights from the full frame look blindingly bright. Can't beat that smoothness of the medium format.
35mm beats medium format in almost every category except tonal range. as you pointed out. medium format's tonal range is why you reach for medium.
I feel like the Sony should be underexposed 1/3 stops to protect the highlights
Gotta love all the exaggeration of the Medium Format look, i have been playing both MF and FF together for a while myself and not sure if it's even worth to give up so much to gain so little, the AF tracking, the frame rate, the overall responsiveness of the system, even the latest GFX100S II doesn't come even close to the top tier FF in term of focusing, and FF also have a lot of F1.2/1.4 glasses available if you need the shallow DOF, while fastest lens in MF is F1.7, so there you go with the so called shallow DOF advantage, while I have not exhaust the noise/DR capabilities of the FF, now I have to give up all the AF performance on every single shot to gain the benefit I need once in a blue moon. " i mean coming from Z9 and A1, teh focusing on GFX100S II is not just frustrating but painful to say the least, clients" don't have access to the side by side comparison of the MF-FF-APC and zoom in 200% on their screen and say " wow, love this MF look", it's only in the head of the one behind the camera.
Compared 50R / 100s with Nikon Z7 II with Sigma and Nikkor Lenses: tonal richness is THE unbeatable feature of medium format. There's no way back, once you came down to "paint" pictures with sky colors and grab the abundance of colorful nature or technical structures with tons of shades and smooth transitions. NO way back.
Using sigma ef glass on the Gfx ?
Fuji has a more natural look while the sony has a exaggerated look, like everything looks overly done
yea man, look at that highlights of the sony compared to the medium format.
Fuji good
@@hotpotgang sony photos are overexposed. Probably to make the sony look bad
@@burhanaltncan4527Ah yes the anti-sony content from a Sony shooter. Makes total sense bro.
to my eye the gfx is noticeably more 3-dimensional with much smoother tonality
GFX highlight roll-off is smooth and soft, which is very pleasing to the eye. After enjoying GFX images, Sony looks like shot on iPhone - they have a more digital look and less life In them.
The skin tones of the Fuji just look so pleasing when next to Sony.
Terrific video! Subtle differences between the two but the great thing there are options for different photographers. I love the camera strap on the Fuji. Do you happen to know the brand? It’s exactly what I’ve been searching for. Thanks!
Would've been cool to put the A7IV in 4:3 mode and match the compositions.
Automatic like for the cleverness of the title alone : ) I liked a lot the photos with the Fujifilm. In part the colors that, maybe is placebo effect, look deeper or denser, and in part because 4:3 aspect ratio looks more professional, like made for magazine.
Yeah i think a more accurate comparison would be to put the 35mm f1.2 sigma on the Sony. That to me makes more sense comparing a 50mm on the GFX
My first thought, absolutely.
Differences i see? Sony exposure is higher, you can see more of the shadows and the highlights are slightly more blown out.
GFX has superior dynamic range
hehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, medium format still have color in highlight or shadow, why you cant see ittt????????????????????????????????? compare medium with full frame, waste time
1.4 on GFX will be close to 1.2 full frame equivalent ....hence separation and bokeh is practically identical
It's 1.1
you have those subtle tones and then you add that shocking preset!
Which should I choose between GFX50SII and A7RV?
I usually shoot people, group activities, and landscapes.
Ricoh gr iii 😂
GFX all the way if you are in the MF channel/forum, and A7RV is a no brainer if you are in the FF/Sony channel/forum. i shoot both but my answer to you is try both and see it for your own eyes, you gotta love all the exaggeration from both camp on internet.
9:05 much better dynamic range on gfx.
Thank you so much for this comparison.
Thanks for this helpful video. I've been contemplating the purchase of the GFX50SII not the GFX100S but it is the format size and resulting IQ that I want to see. I do not find the outcomes shown here as persuasive to make me think the GFX50SII or large format camera has the necessary step up in IQ to justify such a move. Yet, I'm still attracted to the GFX format. I reckon the best way to find out is to buy and try but the risk of rejection and therefore financial loss seems very high in my estimation.
I can tell you as somebody who shoots with both an A7RIVa and GFX 100S, there are some major differences between the images. I have very little work to do with the GFX images in capture one. They are absolutely stunning pretty much straight out of camera - RAW or JPEG. The buttery smooth transitions from highlights to shadows are gorgeous. Oh, and the in-camera raw processing is insanely cool if I'm on the go and don't have time to edit on my mac.
a very interesting comparison - I didn’t know that you can put full-frame lenses on Fuji
It’s a great option - gives you quite unique look
You can also shoot GFX cameras in 35mm crop mode to increasing its versatility.
Does this mean that you aren't using the entire sensor when you are using a full frame lens? Like it is in a 35mm crop mode?
Sorry dude, if you arent using equivalent focal length lenses and compensate by changing subject distance, you are comparing apples to oranges, because your perspectives FOV/distortions dont match. So all these comparisons are basically dominated by which is the more appropriate focal length to use, regardless of which camera it is. Congrats on messing that up.
I wonder why Fuji doesn't produce f/1.4 & f/1.2 lens for GFX. Don't think they would be much bigger than EF lens. I guess they ll come one day...
Nice cameras but poort shoots 😢
Have you tried the Pentax 645z? It's a few years old now but works well with the old 645 lenses. It's the closest medium format look in digital I can get.
its the same sensor as the one in the gfx 50r/s/s ii.
Thanks for the video, love it!❤
Would you share the RAWs that I compare them on LR?
Hello fron Italy! Vert nice comparison! I nikon user interested in fuji gfx. Whic lens adaptor did you used? Thanks
I like sony fullframe vs gfx comparison, but when i see GFX with fullframe lens it’s not appropriate i think, so we can’t see the true differences
Sony 50 gm vs 63mm GF lense
Thank you for your review, i am always ejoy watching it!
oh yeah, I feel you. Tested 63mm back in the day and was not very impressed, as it's very slow lens f/2.8, so FF equivalent is 50mm f/2.2. Not even close to what 50/1.2 produces on FF, hence I chose different lens for this test in order to try to beat that 50/1.2 on FF.
1,7 vs 1.2? it should be huge different, how to compare?
get a 1.8 vs 1.8,
using Gmaster is too OP
its hard to see a difference unless we go 1/1.2 /1.4 lenses with the GFX . The 1.8/2.0 GFX lenses would generally look the same as fullframe 1.4/1.2 . SO the only real advantage of GFX would be clean and crisp 100mp images. Maybe if you crop the Sony images to a 4:3 ratio - the difference will be bigger. ANd it al comes down to preference - if you like 4:3 go with GFX. If prefer 2:3 , save the money and go with a fullframe.
It’s pretty easy to see the difference when you print. The file quality of the gfx is outstanding, using gf lenses, compared to any FF.
The difference between these photos are basically the difference between a sharp lens and an extra sharp lens... no one, absolutely no one, but the photographer will see the difference.
What camera and lens are you filming with in those pov shots?
What you should do is a scientific comparison with equivalent native lenses. Not an adapted 35mm lens. Or at least use the same lens on the Sony. Surely?
You guys are missing out on the Mitakon 65mm 1.4 for the gfx. Try also 105 2.4 Pentax, 80 1.9 Mamiya and 85mm old contax 1.4.
That is what I’m saying.. tons of cheap lenses to get from medium format glass.. would literally be no competition if you threw those things on.
Mitakon is much less sharp than Sigma
any autofocus?
This sigma on the GFX is manual and without electronics?
Everything works - including AF, and it does transfer the information to the file, which is great too. And to change aperture you just turn the ring on the adapter itself. Pretty neat!
@@MagicWeddingPhotographer is it even legal? 😅
Are these adapted lenses for FE mount or EF?
Would you go a7iv or A7rv
Why the lens looks dirty?
what mic u use for this videos?
The Fuji looks consistently better
What strap is on the gfx?
Love the comparison - and honestly, I strongly prefer images from the Sony when compared side by side and can't see much of a difference in terms of any effect from sensor size. 645 format film is a bit larger than the GFX, which is probably, in part, why.
good video! I hope you can make another gfx video with mitakon 65mm 1.4 lens and ofc compare it to other lens . It should be interesting. Love your video and I enjoy watch it !
Noted!
one's butter...the other is not.
Your Sony photos are just too overexposed, it’s impossible to compare
Exactly.
engga mencoba untuk di zoom secara maksimal kawan
Skin tones is really the only obvious thing I see. The gfx looks flat compared to the Sony. Also the Sony looked to have been 1/3 stop too bright, if like to have seen an exact comparison or dropped the exposure a little. But all in all a client wouldn’t tell. I love the GFX, but I could buy 2 or 3x Sony a7iv’s for the price of 1 GFX and for weddings that a client will only put on instagram, I can’t see the reason to pay the amount, for portrait editorial, then yes, the fuji
I shoot Nikon, so I am unbiased. Liking the Sony for so many reasons. I shoot weddings, seeing the difference it is negligible. For my purpose GFX is overkill with loss of speed and from these images colour.
Sony’s pictures is much better.. but if your talking about the bokeh and wideness of the picture Fuji is better. The look on Sony is more pleasing however
Differences don't really matter.
sony 14bit color no good
more ads!
The not mentioned joke is that all these cameras nowadays could long ago allready offer free configurable viewfinder cropping. "Full frame" sensor really should be 40 x 40 mm or so, allowing square 33x33 square or so instead of stupid 24x24, and "narrow" panorama, also same aspect ratio as "medium format" (also a BS nomenclatura), etc, and allow options how to switch horizontal to vertical without turning the camrra, even swiveling autolevelling -without having to redesign the lense's covering.
BTW I see no reason for saying that fuji has to be taken for it's better image quality. none. Because it is not. And is less practical and has less lenses and is slower. But if someone prefers it's handling and the above is of. no concern, then yes. Sadly, competition is necessary.
Manufacturing 40x40mm sensors would be substantially more expensive than 36x24.
@@BenHowlandPhoto Com'on ! (My proposition is roughly the same surface than those so (falsly) called Medium Format Cameras 30x45. And no need to redesign any lenses or habits.- and they would sell more cameras because much more practical and versatile without changing system gear).
Regarding your "substantiousally more expensive" :
are You referring to Laica S2 and S3, Fuji MF, Hasselblad, all these non-sens
engeneers there, perhaps?
You could be right since they have to re-engineer their own (slower) lenses that they have to build for far less users who enjoy les competition versatility for far more money.....
1:24 clean your lens once in a while, man. come on.
To be honest you are not using the sensor in it’s maximum capabilities by using a sigma lenses on a “medium format sensor”. I’d rather applaud your effort if you use a medium format manual lenses on this camera. I’ve seen the other channel using medium format lenses and it came out way better than your shots.
what do you mean? can you expand your comment? If lens is covering the full sensor, maybe with a slight vignette, then what's the difference?
He did another review with the medium format 80 1.7, and it didn’t look as special 🤷♂️
Let me give you a hint that others gived away ... to understand why gfx and sony are so close ...fuji uses a sony sensor ...😂
Clean the damn focus ring! You guys are dirty
The Sony's 50GM images pops more, with better skintones and oof renderings
@@tomaskroupakkfoto4132Same
Starting a video with 'What's up everyone' just sounds dumb. We are not all Americans, and asking a question that is not meant to be answered, just because every other sheep starts their video that way, is well, like just being a sheep really. Think about why you are saying it, what purpose and value it has and then ask yourself is it appropriate and would there be many other better options for welcoming your viewers and introducing yourself. Like the Sesame Street t-shirt, it is a lame attempt to come across as a modern version of cool and interesting, yet your viewers generally will not perceive them that way and often such gimmicks become negatives, rather than positives that the content creator is aiming for. Be more real and authentic would be my top tip, and just speak to people naturally. Don't show subscription or ads unless they only appear in the last quater of the video and only when you have earned the privilege of interrupting your viewers with content they did not click on and choose to watch.
This comment is all about modern RUclips, not bad comment 7/10
Phil, go get a life 🥲
So many words to say nothing meaningful
Some people really think that by clicking on a video they did an incredible favor to the person who recorded it. Someone spends hours making a video that gives you some value, but there will be a stragglers who thinks they would have done it differently. If you know how to do it, it's better to create your own channel and do it your way, and if you don't like it, don't watch it.