Sony A7R4 vs Fuji GFX100 with 30A Fine-Art Photographer Chandler Williams
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- Coastal Art Photographer Chandler Williams shows the differences between prints taken on the Sony A7R4 and Fuji GFX100.
Chandler Williams is Visit South Walton's 2021 Artist of the Year!
www.visitsouth...
If you’re looking for art on 30A, or just want to check things out, we invite you to visit us in person. We’re located in historic Grayton Beach at 39 Logan Lane, directly across from Black Bear Bread CO.
Modus has photography in variety sizes and styles to fit your needs and preferences. Whether you're picturing a collage of small prints or a large, hanging centerpiece, you can find it in our gallery. Come in and experience the gallery while taking in the landscapes of 30A, South Walton and even foreign moments from Chandler's travels!
Not in the Grayton Beach area? Check out our online gallery:
www.modusphoto...
For any sale inquiries, contact us:
info@modusphotography.com
Modus Photography,
39 Logan Ln #9, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Cell: 850-714-7997
Closed Captioning:
Currently I shoot with a Sony A7R3 and A7R4. These cameras are very good in a lot of different ways. When it comes to landscape photography there’s an elevated experience and it gets into medium format so I rented a Fuji GFX 100 and I did some test shots. So both of these images that we will talk about are taken in the same setting, same time, same aperture, same iso, same time a day, (like they are minutes apart). They’re also stacked with a polarizing filter and a ND 6 filter so it’s plates of glass to slow down the shutter.
If you wanna be true to the printing aspect when it comes to true photography printing, anything over a 30x40 typically you’re going to need a medium format camera.
So these medium format cameras range from $5000 to after $40,000-$50,000. So this one was right here is taken on the A7R4 this is roughly an 85mb uncompressed RAW but your sensor size is smaller than the medium format.
So this one is the one I took on the Fuji GFX 100, pretty impressed with it, the color algorithms within the two camera bodies are different as well so there’s also a little time in difference as far as the Sony that has a little more color pop just cause the sun came out for a little while.
When you really look at these underneath at really close detail, you don’t have any noise in your blacks, which is a common problem with any kind of mirrorless or basic DSLR it might be 85 mb but the reality is that it’s a smaller censor size and it’s not a medium format so that’s really the differences. On this medium format image you can really tell that there is not noise so that’s pretty interesting to see side by side. Right here and the post as well, you have ringlets you can really see the detail in the ringlets, with the Sony you can’t even tell cause of its soft focus.
These are just test prints I did, they are 40 x 60 in size on Canon Luster print paper, just to really do the comparable and to make the leap. Here in the fine art gallery I really want to elevate the photography game here in area as well as educate the differences on medium format and normal consumer pro DSLR cameras
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Very helpful, like the atmosphere of your short information film
What an insane photo. The amount of information in the white spaces..? Amazing.
Thank you for the video. I shoot landscapes with a Sony A7RIV as well. I see the same noise issues at ISOs above 100. However, the new Photoshop built in denoise does and amazing job of getting rid of the noise and adding detail even with ISO 100 images! There is usually a penalty with any post processed improvements. I am yet to see any artifacting or degrading from denoising my images. I am still interested in the GFX100s but will wait a little longer as the rumors are talking about a 90+MP Sony sensor coming soon.
Thanks so much for doing this. I’ve been looking for more objective (ish) comparisons between Phase One and GFX as well as more unbiased views on them by people with a foundation to express opinions on them. In one of your comments you raved about the Phase One. Now, stepping back for a minute; which generation of Phase or Leaf CCD or CMOS sensors would you say are almost on par with the GFX 100s? I’ve been going back and forth on this for a few weeks now. Both the workflow and the age of the older units makes me a bit nervous but I do see tons of people raving about those older CCD backs made by Dalsa. I’m not blown away by a lot of the sample images I’ve seen from the GFX but I’m also wondering if maybe I’m just overthinking this and whether this is more a result of the hype train effect more so than anything else. It seems like the IQ backs dominate a lot of the current archival jobs and the like where the best is required and where the higher price tier makes sense. I finally have the funds for the GFX but I also don’t want to just drop cash on a half baked, slightly superior camera than my full frame 5D IV. Thanks for reading . Have a good one
I went from a 36MP Pentax K1, a fantastic camera to a Sony A7RIV with Tamron zoom lenses. I like the colors of Pentax better but 36-60MP jump allows me to print 40"x60" or even larger. I had my lab print me a 54"x81" (60x90 allowing room for stretching) image on canvas and the results are simply stunning. With this kind of enlargement, you are advised to view the images from 5-6ft away or even further. I can go as close as inches from the canvas and see tons of detail in my image. Another big issue is the aspect ratio of 35mm (2x3) vs. medium format (4x3). I am used to the look of 2x3 and will need some adjusting to go to the 3x4 aspect ratio.
2:35 is that cause of that it is a 102mpx print ?
Are you referring to the print falling off the wall?
@@modusphotography3966 yes
IMHO, the true test is resolution but in what appears to be a long exposure, detail is markedly reduced.
That same lens?
No, because they are different cameras. If you are referring to the focal lengths, then yes they are similar.
This is really interesting video, different angle of view and point to a professional issue of colours understanding which is only a fine artist realize how much is important: BLACK! I would like to ask you to do same comparison shop for more samples in this way for a7Riv and GFX100s please. Thank you
Thanks. if we get time we can. However after this video I realized that the cropped medium format is not the direction I wanted to take it to the next level and go full frame and go phase one xf iq4 150. Thanks
@@modusphotography3966 sorry I didn’t understand what you mean!
@@modusphotography3966 so, as I understood your statement is recommending GFX100s medium format 102 mp for providing correct coulours and sharper details for fine art photography rather than Sony high map like a7riv full frame 61mp. Is it right? Although based on my experience also image quality of GFX medium format (both 50 and 100mp) is kind of deeper with rich tones rather than Sony sensor full frame. Fuji even is useful to use for large print without editing but Sony is leading you to spend sometimes for editing in post as well although the result is impressive. Photography experience for these both cameras are different dispose of similarity is result (if we see same for both).
@@mrz1342 yes that is correct. Medium format even with lower pixel amount will be better for fine art printing. The color science of phase one combined with capture one blows fuji medium format out of the water. sony's are great cameras but it is still a fx sensor.
@@modusphotography3966 the difference is a huge price for Phase one cameras vs new Fujifilm 102 mp, besides size, weight, portability, film simulation in-camera system, etc. the point which is very important for me is minimum need for post-production and spend more time to produce images by the camera such as framing, composition, colour tones, etc. rather than shooting and force to seat front of the monitor and manipulate an image to present it as fine art photography but FAKE! it is a similar difference between handmade carpet and machinery one! looks same from far (or in social media) but energy and soul are missing aspect... in this way, I believe all Fujifilm cameras (because of sensor engineering, and internal film simulation feature) are providing the opportunity of taking photo even as jpg without editing at all (especially for street and adventure photography) or landscape) and for RAW files very soft adjustment in the post but not manipulation. on the other side when I shoot with my a7RIV I have to take images to editing software to process for the final image and this is what it vanishing my feeling as a photographer, i feel I am making the image as a photo-editor, not taking a photo as a photographer! when I talk about this to other professional photographers, most of them refer me to innovative darkroom activities of some previous photographers like Ansel Adams which still is not an Art-statement of photography to me but photo-making or let's say Imagography rather than Photography. Therefore, this massive group of photographers, unfortunately, have been accepted lightroom-editing (digitally) instead of darkroom-printing as an un-separable part of photography. the result is more attention to technology, renewing applications, devices manuals, technical and competitive arguments about brands, etc. rather than focus on composition rules, art history, concepts and spirits, etc...sorry for long massage :)
this comparison, is just re-affirming the superiority of a larger sensor over a smaller sensor under trying circumstances. The results are as expected, its physics
There is however no fundamental advantage ...
Beginning with the fact that you have less depth of field, less lenses - big apertures like 1.2 or even 0.95, that do not exist at all for MF ...
You habe slower cameras with a slower framerate and inferior AF-Systems, more rolling-shutter. Thus there are captures you do not get at all with medium format.
@@w.scholz9705No fundamental advantages except for the clear fundamental advantages. Got it.
@@POVwithRC + Sonys A7R V has no PDAF Banding ...
@@w.scholz9705 This is one of the dumbest comments ever said about GFX....and shows you don't understand photography at all bud....the GFX has fundamental advantages of being able to capture much more detail, much better natural color science, and much better dynamic range, and...much better tonality gradations...the tonal transitions are much smoother due to the bigger pixels of the sensor, which is one of the contributing factors to the increased dynamic range by the way.
And genius....you can mount the Canon Dream Lens 50/0.95 on a GFX through M mount adaptors and it works really well....or Canon 50 1.2 or Canon 85 1.2L or FD85 1.2....so yes...lenses of 1.2 aperture do exist, can be used, do cover the image circle, and there are tons of other options as well, not to mention lenses by Mistaken and many others that are native to the GFX mount.
Weird how you say not having any 1.2 lenses available is a downside, yet...1.2 lenses are highly desirable for LESS DEPTH OF FIELD and the creative effect you can use with shallow depth of field.....but then you say the GFX has no fundamental advantage due to "less depth of field"...do you see why the comment is so dumb? Less depth of depth can't be both negative and a positive at the same time.....and less depth of field is neither positive nor negative by itself....it's an attribute to be used creatively...soemtimes it's a great help....other times shallow depth of field is something you can't have for the picture envisioned or seen or stumbled upon...so you simply stop the lens down.....and if you have to...use a tripod ....like any other format alf camera makes you do as well.