For the 16 bit color remember that you are looking at it at best on a 10 bit monitor which is your biggest limitation. Put it to paper in a quality lab.
But more colours means more room for adjustments, other than that I am happy even with 8 bit image quality as a final on screen image, with some exceptions in sky gradients.
Thats even more of a limitation. Even a high end printer doesnt come close to the possibilities of digital displays. The Canon ProGraf hast the ability for about 100.000 to 1.000.000 halftones. A 10bit Display has 1000 times more colours.
I think you are confusing the colors displayed in the end and the CHOICE of colors at the time of shooting and post-processing. It's a bit like if - being able to display only 256 different colors on a drawing for example - you declared that a box of 2500 pencils would have no advantage over a box of 300 pencils to make your drawing. 16 bits is largely superior to 14 bits by definition, because the "color palette" allows a wider choice of shades, and therefore a more natural final result (in 8 or 10 bits). I work every day on a Medium Format in native 16 bits (Hasselblad H5D-60 with "MF Full Frame 4.5x6 » CCD sensor) and I can assure you that for the restitution of flesh tones, I have not found anything equivalent.
I’m a full-time Digital Tech in Chicago, I agree with some of the information that you’re seeing in your video. Being a photographer is like being a Carpenter. You pick the hammer that you need for the job. Depending on how the photographer shoots (Lifestyle, people, table top) that will determine the type of camera you get. Shooting with the medium format, phase XF system 100 -150 MP is a slower and more methodical way of shooting. On the other hand, the GFX system is a happy medium between medium format and shooting with a Mirrorless system. Here is a example from a job last summer. We were shooting the GFX 100 and the Sony around 5000 ISO for a setup at night. The photographer was shooting stills while they were filming the commercial at 9pm inside of a large camping’s tent. The DP wanted LED lights mimicking a lantern between 3 young girls camping. I was pleasantly surprised when using capture one (NOT Lightroom) how good the files looked in the shadow detail held in the uncompress Raw file. I zoomed in on one of the talents faces that was about 50% of the frame and I could see that she was lit a little under exposed. I could see the eyelashes and see that her pupils are dilated. The Sony files were OK, nothing to write home to mom about,the shadows are blocking up. But this photographer had worked extensively with a GFX 100 system so he knew the equipment and the software (Capture One)limitations. I’m very glad that most photographers actually rent a Med Format from Doddcamera.com or Lens Rentals.com. or Borrow Lenses.com Don’t go out and buy something cold turkey without renting it first. Pretty much how Manny did his side-by-side with his shooting style. Renting something over a holiday weekend may/may not get you an extra free day of Rental to play with the equipment that you want to consider purchasing or rent for a job. disclaimer: I’m a Fuji shooter and 99% of my jobs. Photographers want to use Capture One for every Professional job that I am a Digital tech on.
I think we’re starting to reach the point of diminishing returns. Paying more for smaller increments of improvement. Having said that, the GFX is an amazing piece of tech and I’m glad Fuji entered the Medium Format space to continue pushing technology and innovation in photography.
Photography has plateaued in terms of technical capabilities. If you have to punch into 200% to strain to see the most subtle distinctions, the point is moot because no one is doing that. Now, more than ever, media is being consumed at the speed of light. Back in the 90s or aughts, a photo like the one at 7:07, across two magazine pages, might have caught people's attention. But now, ppl scroll right past something like that on Insta in 5 seconds (if even that!) I liked what I saw with the Fuji GFX 100s here, but even with the Hasselblad $45,000 digital backs, I doubt if your average person would notice any difference from a Canon R5 in the way most media is consumed today, which is on cell phone. I will say that the one exception is lenses. Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference.
Agree, "Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference." Cause you are in front of a 16 feet wide by 9 feet high or 20 feet wide by 12 feet high screen , the highest resolution optics and lens are a must.
I agree, and you're right about lenses for movies. Anamorphic lenses specifically with a 2x squeeze or beyond have a visibly different look, and all cost 10,000 or more for the real deal. But I also believe HDR will be important in the future, as display technology advancing will allow for finally dynamic range to matter beyond the ability to edit. Itll matter in end delivery. But that will take some time, and ultimately it'll be displays leading the charge more than the actual cameras, but it will allow us to use the cameras more fully.
I've been saying this! I stepped out of the photography game to focus on learning and mastering videography, but when I came back and bought another photography camera, I was blown away for two reasons: 1) the autofocus is SO good 2) the raw images didn't look THAT much better than a 9 year old Nikon D750... there was a difference but the actual image quality was very close.
When people talk about sensor or negative size impacting depth of field, a crucial detail they miss out on is that it's not a 1:1 comparison. If you put a 35mm (focal length) equivalent lens on a camera with a 6x7 negative vs an actual 35mm lens on a 35mm negative, the 6x7 shot would have significantly shallower depth of field at the same aperture and field of view. There are no digital sensors that big. The "medium format look" comes from different DoF at comparable field of view and the visual impact of that is greatly diminished when the sensors are actually really close in size and aspect ratio (like FF Sony and Fuji GFX). Even the largest digital sensors are only like 645 negatives and to be fair, you would start to see a real difference there, but what do you know, that's what you have to pay $20K and up for. Don't sleep on 16bit colour though, if you're shooting for a magazine or a big campaign and your images area going to be retouched by elite level techs, they'll wish you shot everything in 16bit
I have been shooting with the Fuji 50sii for about a year now and I just love this camera. I still have my Sony's for most of my run and gun corporate work but the color rendition and filmatic look that I get from the Fuji is not matched by Sony. The autofocus sucks compare to the Sony, but sometimes the images that you get with Sony cameras are too digital looking. If you want to slow your pace down and focus on the art of photography I truly enjoy shooting the Fuji over Sony's.
to me all the digital current sensors that I've seen look very digital looking, none have any filmatic look (imho). Any old digital FF camera blows it away, If I want some of that filmic look on digital (in my case I'd grab my old 5Dii + zeiss 50 1.4) but many other will do: 5d, d700, d3...
I shoot apsc and ff, and y have an analog mf and even an analog 8x10", the bigger the medium the heavier,bulkier and less portable the camera... so, it all comes down to what do you need for doing photos of what ...and where! I also use mi phone hahaha😊 ...being cruel and honest, for editing you need a special monitor and gpu capable of displaying all those bits of color most laptops don't go beyond 6-8 bpc 😢 and mid range monitors go from 8-10bpc... still far from cameras.
I think the reason for these " digital looks" are the size of the small pixels. I know this is going to sound weird but my 12mp sensor images look less digital than my 42 megapixel camera.
Being shooting the gfx for years and I 100% agree with you. Images are better but you pay in weight and features. I use it because I work 100% in studio and slow pace shots. In any other situation, I would go with FF.
In Full Frame vs Medium Format I think it can be best summed up as the more you can control the environment of the shot, the better Medium Format can perform in comparison to Full frame when all else is relatively equal. I feel like Medium Format leans towards "creating" the perfect shot where Full Frame is more able to "capture" the perfect shot.
Skin tone difference is night and day.There's so much complexity there in the Fuji shots. It shifts from the warm yellows to violet tones to magenta. It renders the reflective complexity of the skin so much better. The Sony is way more uniformous in the way it interprets skin tones. Which can be good or bad. In portraiture a more simple rendition can be beneficial. But if you're looking for the absolute most light information, MF is probably gonna be it.
If you look at the picture at 1.05 . Under the chin you have almost the same yellow reddish tone in both pics, a bit more saturated in the sony one. But as you move down to the chest area, where the light hits more perpendicular, the sony gives you a brighter tone of the same color, while the fuji shifts to a colder more blueish lemony hue. And you get this variability all over the skin. There's just so much more color resolutiuon there.
Though it is far from accurate. I have yet to see someone outdoors with fluctuating color temperatures and hues in their skin from head to neck. The way her face looked white towards the center of the face is so unnatural looking. Is it stylized sure, but that's not reality.
Manny is there a reason you didn’t go for the 80? Or try a wide angle lens? I feel like something people misinterpret about MF is that it has to be shot like a FF camera and I think if you tried wide environment portraits and also the 80mm then reviewed your prints you’d be wildly surprised at how VAST a difference there is.
There is something you are missing here. Look at all the side by sides again. While the 110 is an 85 field of view it still has the compression of a 110! In every side by side you can see the background compression way nicer more compressed. That’s the medium format look! If you are on an 80 and it’s like 50mm equivalent you still get the compression of an 80 if you’re standing in the same exact spot. Because it’s not a 50 it’s actually an 80 but gives you a less field of view. That’s the medium format look and it makes things more three dimensional. As far as the 16 bit colors that you will see in editing latitude not sooc.
This ! , and this is what should differentiate between different crop sensors. Alot of reviewers go on to compare field of view and aperture crop , while completely disregarding the lens compression! A 85mm f/2 will perform will always perform like a 85 f2 regardless of the sensor size , as the actual physics and character of the lens would never change ! The real moment when mf would shine is at f/2.8-3.5 ff eqv where the fall off and bokeh in a far background would be much more smoother , while still keeping the much of forefront and mid ground in focus
@@BaldRavenHairedThis is completely wrong. Lenses or focal lengths do not produce compression. It is just a matter of distance to the subject plus (equivalent) aperture. This is hard science and not debatable. A 85mm 1.4 on full frame can compress exactly the same as a 108mm f1.8 on "medium format" - same distance and aperture size. Lens design can still affect focus falloff and bokeh. But there is absolutely no inherit advantage towards full frame designs. In fact there are plenty of full frame lenses that offer a more "medium format" look than actual medium format lenses. Lens compression is a myth and has been debunked endlessly. Just stop with that nonsense or just join the flat earthers 😂
@@RegrinderAlert @RegrinderAlert yes it's the all about the distance from the subject IN RESPECT to the focal length that is . A 28 f1.2 with even high close focusing distance ,can never provide the background seperation of a 85 f1.8 . Not to mention the compression . There is a reason why m3/4's are not the preferred choice for portraiture. Because equivalent focal length of a 50mm still can't provide the background separation of a 50mm in ff terms . Similarly shoot a portrait in 135- 200 f2.8 in ff and you can easily get the "medium format look" from a full frame but it's just plain inconvenient to shoot a subject from just a distance. Not to mention the focal length of a lens doesn't change regardless of the sensor size ! The 110mm f2 Fuji is a 87mm f1.5~ in equivalent due to the larger sensor . Adapt the same lens to ff u get a 110mm . Adapt the lens to a apsc you get a 167mm f3 ! The compression and bokeh will remain the same , but the distance is increased and your shooting style changed !
I shoot (baby) MF, FF and APS-C. What I will say is this. With MF there is a 'look' that the other two can struggle to replicate at times, BUT... to derive that look you need to play to the strengths of the MF sensor which actually is not to shoot wide open and seek thin DoF/bokehilcious. If all your experience thus far in your comparisons are as shallow DoF as possible (like you show above).. then yeh the differences are slim to none in seeing 'a different look'. Where I feel differences are felt the most is when you actually stop down the medium format camera. There exists this space, depth and breadth in the image between your subject and environment (which you haven't blown to smithereens with bokeh) that APS-C definitely struggles to replicate (even with f0.85 glass) or FF glass at an equivalent aperture. It's an 'environmental' portrait look, the buildings behind, windows, clearly defined with context, yet the image does not feel flat like it can do with APS-C and FF and instead this breathing room seems to exist. You have to get everything dialed in, the right lens, distance to subject, subject distance to backdrop etc, it might be f4 on MF and f2.8 on FF, something that stives to get about the same DoF or bokeh amount, but when you manage it and the two images look similar... the MF will have more space and life about it. And also of course those f11 or f13 studio headshots, try some of those. Basically in summary I have never felt the shallow DoF or bokeh was a strength of MF, and if all your comparisons are based around such styles then definitely its hard to see a difference with todays fast FF primes. The smaller the sensor the more flatter things feel at certain apertures. MF feels spacious but you'll only experience that under the right circumstances.
Same thing can be said about full frame vs crop sensors. Nowadays there are really no major differences but the perceived thought is that there is. Well there is the lack of super fast lenses but that's slowly starting to change. I've seen many RUclipsr's full frame vs crop sensor videos and the photos all come out looking the same, where you can't tell the difference unless you're told which is which.
One could argue that there is a BIGGER difference between DX and FF in terms of ISO performance than the FF vs MF. Truth be told, there has been A LOT more R&D in the FX/DX field than the MF space. That's where the money is so they pushed these "smaller" formats as far as they go, whereas MF is only a niche field. Anyway true medium format means H-series from Hasselblad and Phase One, and even THOSE are smaller formats than the smallest film medium-format :)
Two problems. The lack of pro level crop lenses. And. Crop bodies often don't have the same buttons and settings available. What's the point of buying a smaller Sony a6600 to then mount on the exact same 70 to 200 2.8 lens and then not have the performance of an A7S or A9?
There’s still a noticeable difference in high ISO performance. Also, a high end APS-C body comes close to a FF body and at that point, it’s like might as well go FF. More lens selection and I don’t need to do math to figure out the FF equivalent 🤷♂️
I agree KS. I have majority full frame mirrorless bodies, but when you have enough experience with crop sensor bodies, you can replicate a similar image. Ive been using my fujifilm X-H2 a lot more lately. The images I can get from it are just as good as my Sony and Nikon full frame cameras, but with a welcomed weight reduction. I don’t shoot a lot of poorly lit portraits regardless of me using FF or DX, so ISO performance has never been an issue for me. I think most ppl just run with the popular narratives instead of just getting out there and trying for themselves.
I shot with the Leica Q for years and switched to fujifilm XPro 3 and everyone still thinks I’m shooting a Leica. It’s hard to tell the difference if you’re not a photographer that shoots wide open. And even then it’s tough.
My last 3 assignments I have been using GFX100s and I once used the big GFX100 last year. The weight and the slow camera speed really meant for portraits and landscapes.
Next video will be titled “Why I Gave Up Full Frame for Medium Format”. That chat at the end, that full frame is pretty much all you need, is what I usually tell myself when a new lens with 1.4 or 1.2 aperture is announced. “I don’t need it. My f1.8 or f2.0 is pretty much there.” That conversation in my own mind happens about a week before I get the new lens with the bigger aperture 😂
Before you get it it’s not your norm. After you get it you see all of the reasons why it costs more. The old adage is still true. You get what you pay for. If you can’t see the difference who cares. If you can and are anal like me it will drive you crazy once you can see the difference!
Great video Manny. As you mentioned, it really depends on context. Sure, the medium format is better, but is that slight difference in quality worth the much bulkier and slower system? Probably not for most shooters outside of those who are in a completely controlled studio environment. And once you've experienced the performance of a FF Sony or Canon, it's hard to go back, especially regarding autofocus speed and accuracy.
@@jaychow94 I just watched this video in 4k and saw the images side by side. The difference seems marginal. I would even say that it is difficult to tell them apart in a double blind test, especially if they aren't side by side.
@@DeletedDelusion You can't just go by two images presented on a youtube video. As someone who has worked with both extensively, there is a difference. The same difference that you see when you compare FF to APS-C. I'm not saying that full frame is bad in comparison, just different. For slower things like portraits, I much prefer the look and handling of the GFX files. For fast paced action like sports shoots, I would completely avoid the GFX and use the Canon R5 which is an incredible camera.
I do really love the skin tones from the Fuji over the Sony…wow ❤. What you are demonstrating is portrait photography, but would love to see a comparison with landscape, fine art etc
For me the biggest take away is that every camera has a purpose. And if you use the camera to it's ideal use case then you will get the images you want. From my perspective the Sony is 100% the better camera for you and what you shoot. For me on the other hand I shoot product photography in a studio where a camera like the Fuji would make getting the finer details easier. It's okay that medium format isn't for you, and I think if people watch this with an open mind then they can decide whether this camera will actually work for them or not.
I assume, that you adress the portrait photography area; in this case, the Sony and the proper glass will be better. I use the GFX 50s I for landscape photography and I see a big difference, because the image looks more plastic, like 3 dimensional and of course it depends what you are shooting. If you shoot a wall, there will be no difference.
Hi Manny, I was a Nikon guy for many years using FX full frame, about a year ago I purchased the 100s. Manny, I still use my Nikons but after working with the 100s for a while I found the clean-up on so-so shots are much easier and cleaner.
Great comments, Manny. I shoot both Sony and Fujifilm, and love both systems, but each has it’s own use case. I agree for studio or landscape, the Fuji is a fantastic tool - that resolution and dynamic range are incredible- but for run and gun the Sony is the much better choice. One thing about the user experience that I’ve noticed…the Sony feels a bit like a computer with a lens attached, whereas the Fuji feels more organic, almost an analog shooting experience. But again, both systems are wonderful tools that can create superior images.
I think the issues are that FF difference vs MF are much smaller in terms of IQ than from FF to smaller formats. For example the DOF advantage of MF is actually the opposite since FF offers faster lenses. And then you have FF bodies with far superior features like AF way above any MF. good video
When medium format used to mean 6cm x 7cm vs 2.4cm x 3.6cm, there was a big difference. Nowadays medium format sensors are closer to 3.3cm x 4.4cm, I don't think there's much difference compared to full frame.
To me the skin tones looked more natural with the GFX100s, except at 2:22 where the sony looks better. However, to be fair, i would match the white point and color in post (not straight out of camera). The sony looks warmer with more saturation and a different gamma. Look at the white singlet when side by side. Of course, there is only so much we can see once compressed for you tube. I imagine that one of the reasons someone would go with say the Hassy is predictability in the color science and the excelent lenses, as much as the fact that it is medium format?
I think it all comes down to knowing. Meaning, if you KNOW you get smoother tones and gradients then what are you going to do with that knowledge. That's different than, say, a business decision where you don't think the client will notice and you have to decide if it's worth it. Olympic races are measured differently than a high school track meet and there's a reason for it. Diminishing returns are a very real concept, but with that said "it's lonely at the top" in terms of ability and in terms of knowledge. So, I guess when deciding if medium format is worth it personally, it depends on where you see yourself in terms of the high school/olympian comparison. And also if it's in your price range. "Your" refers to any reader, not necessarily the producer of the video.
Hi Manny. Thank you for this excellent comparison of the image quality of the GFX and FF Sony. As a Nikon Z System landscape, product and macro photographer, I have been quite satisfied with the image sharpness and detail I obtain from the Nikon Z System (Z7, Z8 and several lenses). However, as I do on ocassion produce very large prints *30"x40" and up), I've always had an interest in medium format. So, in your opinion, do you feel that the X2D with, say, the Hasselblad 120/3.5 XCD Macro lens would give me a very substantial improvement in image quality (particularly image sharpness and detail rendition) in the large prints? Thank you sir!
I don't think you a radical difference in the color until you do something like a landscape shot, with the radial gradation of color in a sunset or sunrise.
Exactly, which is why so many top landscape, portraitists and studio photographers shoot medium format. A handheld outdoor street portrait is hardly a definitive test where we can claim to have uncovered “the truth about medium format”. Lol.
Where the conclusion would be different is by using much more closed diaphragms. I don't really understand how we can realize the performance of lenses in the background (where the MF is much superior to the 24x36) if we "erase" the background with this horrible blur devoid of resolving power (since if the lens no longer displays details in the blur, it is because we are well beyond its optimal operating zone) I know that it is very fashionable, this mania of making a sharp character "stuck" on a blurred background. But it does not do justice to the lenses. I work for major cosmetic brands (Redken for example) and I can assure you that these photos with a collage effect would never be accepted. It probably works for Instagram, but not for B2B professionnal images of the "cosmetics" type for example. For using MF every day (Hasselblad H5D-60) I can assure you that these portraits are NOT representative of what an MF can do in portrait. And even for a small sensor MF like this Fuji you can get much better results by using the optics to its full potential If you really want to see what the optics give, shoot at ƒ/5.6, ƒ/8 or ƒ/11 in portrait outdoors or in the studio (I use both)
The really great asset of the GFX is that using an adapter you can throw fabulous Sigma Art primes on it. They are intended for FF but their image circle can comfortably cover 44x33mm sensor as well. Lenses like 40/1.4 or 105/1.4 do give the GFX another level of rendering, separation for very reasonable prices (considering the Fuji MF lenses). It is awesome!
If you want fast, flexible, and easy to carry, then get full frame. I have APS-C with a full suite of lenses, Nikon Full frame digital and film, a full Medium format GFX digital system and medium format film, but the camera I always grab what I want to produce an image I'm going to sell, is my Fuji GFX system. I just got that GF110mm lens too. It's incredible. Only things I use another camera for are video, macros, and long tele shots. The dynamic range, color, and detail are just so superior on the GFX. My favorite thing are the completely recoverable shadows. Definitely not needed though to make a living. Sometimes I wish I had a Nikon Z8 system, or a Canon R5 setup too, but at some point I've just got to stop and focus more on creating artwork with all this gear. Anything used well is better than the best gear just sitting on a shelf.
Great video Many, my two cents are, the a7rv is one of the best that full frame has to offer, the Gfx not so much(some purists might say that it's not a real medium format)it would be interesting to see the A1 vs the best Hasselblad or phase one.
Manny, when I was video taping weddings back in the 80s ,90s early 2000s, if a photographer shot with a Hasselblad, he was given great respect. If you do Hasselblad I would say don't use one of thier lower priced ones.
I think you should have used a wider lens to compare both formats ( say a 50mm for meduim forrmat and 35mm full frame).. As larger sensor allows you to get close to the subject without the distortion you would see with an APSC or a full frame.
I used A7R2 and A7R3 for years and I finally moved to Fuji XT4 and now rocking Fuji XH2. Every Sony image you showed has the same green and yellow tones on Skin which I hated on my previous Sony cameras. It looks like after all these iterations, Sony still SUCKS on Skin tones. Fuji has the best natural even skin tones. I always had to correct the skin tones on Sony but on Fuji I do not have to correct them at all.
Great video as someone that's been thinking about buying an X1D II 50C. Full frame sensors have come a long way and the gap between full frame and medium format is very small now unless you move up to things like the X2D with 100MP.
Probably the best comparison is between medium format and full-frame on film, because the different designs of sensors keep the comparisons from being apples to oranges. Also, film medium format is so much larger than full-frame that if there’s a difference, it will be more dramatic.
i wish ultra ultra wide angle lens are more popular like 9mm, imagine seeing photographers using 9mm lens, I'm gonna shoot this 9 mill gonna have a whole lot of different meaning
I see the difference more in my prints. On the screen , I agree with you for the most part. Though it does seem I can push the raw files more with the gfx100s. Low light and high iso I get way better results also.
Guys who lift weights to impress girls don't realize that the only people who notice or care are other dudes - for the most part girls don't care. Photographers who use medium format cameras now to impress clients and viewers with image quality don't realize the only people who notice or care are other photographers - for the most part the average person/client can't tell the difference (even most photographers can't tell the difference unless you do a side by side comparison viewed at 100%). The current disadvantages of MF outweigh the advantages.
What brand is that camera bag? I always wanted a compact bag for a pro body and a couple of lenses with other accessories. The one you have seems just what I need.
@@VCAPITAL33 at the moment I use a LowePro gearup pro L insert in a timbuk2 messenger bag. Similar size and works well (holds a little bit of extra stuff like water bottle and jacket too)
Shot Sony A7R4 for years and recently switched to Fujifilm GFX 50Sii and I miss the AF and speed of the Sony, but the IQ from Fujifilm is superb! Glad I switched.
Does anybody remember the old EGA computer monitors? They had 640x350 resolution, and showed 16 colors out of a palatte of 256 colors. And we were blown away by them when they came out - until VGA came out wtih 640x480 resolution, displaying 256 colors. But if you display an old image designed for EGA on a VGA monitor, it's not going to look a lot better. How about televisions? I remember people saying that 4K TV's didn't look much better than the older standard LED TV's, and that you couldn't really tell the difference unless you were sitting within a few feet of them. That was because they were showing standard definition content on the new 4K screens. But when Blu-Ray hit the market, and people saw what actual HD content looked like, 4K television sales went crazy. You don't have to be trained to see the difference between an older LED screen and a newer 4K screen displaying HD content. It's totally obvious. Now... if you are only taking photos to show on "normal" computer monitors, you're not going to see much if any difference between shots taken on full frame and shots taken on a medium format camera. That's because all the "normal" monitors display 8-bit color, which is 16.7 million colors. But have a look at those same phots on something like and Eizo 10-bit monitor (and a capable graphics card) that can display 1.07 billion colors and you WILL see a difference. As someone already said, you need to put these photos to paper from a quality lab and then you won't have any question whether medium format is that much better. You don't want medium format for vlogging, or sports/wildlife obviously. But for portraits, landscapes, product photography, etc. you absolutely do want it.
Outro: This video is only meant to shine light and not throw shade. Find what works best for you to flourish and thrive. Never stop learning because photography is always a work in progress. Beautiful work. Thoughtful content. Humble man. Keep up the great work, Manny!
For me this GFX look is different and worth the price. I'm Sony user but if I had a chance to change it I would do it. If you want to have this fashion/cinematic look, medium format with better DR is everything.
This is a very good comparison between two formats. For me the GFX is a bloated FF-system. And here is why: The 15 stops of dynamic range may only be important if you do photoshop heavily. Most cameras have a recorded output of around 12isch. The lenses have a dynamic range too. Not all lenses perform equally at all frequencies. If you like bokeh, then FF is the better system and more affordable. I am not sure if the GFX50 is better since the photocells should be larger. I would rather consider a real MF system such as the Hasselblad H6D-100c or the Phase One System. Speaking of dynamic range and the recorded 16bits. Hasselblad was recording 16Bits with their 50MP senor but only 14Bits were processed. Going down the line, how many bits can your monitor represent? 6, 8 or 10? 8-bit+FRC or not? In the end an image is getting diluted a fair bit before you can see it.
I recently discovered your channel and I'm fully enjoying the content. I must say after years of using APS-C I'm looking at full frame and the Canon EOS R8 looks very good. Keep up the content great work
I shoot with an A7RIV and chose it over medium format because of all the advantages you are talking about. Although I shoot landscapes mostly and can use the additional resolution, I feel with 60MP sensor, I have plenty of resolution to work with.. Another important consideration is aspect ratio. If I turn a 4:3 medium format into a 2:3 FF sensor orientation, I have to crop away. Then I lose some of the resolution advantage. Most of my landscapes are 2:3 and stitched panos.
One thing I dont like about 'medium format' is how broad that term is... Its anything smaller than large format (9x12cm) and larger than small format (fullframe, 3.5x2.4cm). the 'medium format magic' stuff began when comparing DSLR to Hasselblad (as far as I know they have both large and small medium format sensors)/Phase One, which is still smaller than smallest medium format in film era, but quite close. Compare those and the difference should be simmilar to comparing APS-C and FF. But this small medium format would be closer to APS-C than FF in that analogy.
Everything you said relates to APSC vs FF comparison too. I just did exactly same test myself and can see much more difference between medium and a FF than FF and APSC.
Are you looking for a trademark out ro for your videos? Just to keep it consistent. You can just say. “See in the next one” or “keep shooting, have fun, and thanks for watching” I don’t think any of us care about the outro. Just keep making great content. Thanks Manny. Always love your videos.
Did u try to edit these heavily? See the difference in the file size, it makes a differenc in how much you can push the files in editing. Other type of photography rather than just portraits. Food / realestate etc. I do always shoot with my sony when it comes to portraits cuz its faster and i dont need the extra juice but in realestate i use the GFX and thats a big difference in how much i can pusch the colors imo and Drange. Thanks for a great video! Muy bueno!
Most of the people who downplay medium format digital, *have never tried it* and want to justify their A7, which is perfectly fine. I do a lot of still life and landscapes. Medium format *always* wins when you compare back-to-back to full frame. On their own, you'd never spot it.
@@ivo919 my experience is with 120 film, my Yashica takes square pictures, 6x6 and the pinhole cam does 6x12. So as long as one side is 6cm I’m fine with calling it MF :)
Years ago when the EOS 10D was the camera I those days. I remember going to a seminar by a photographer and he trashed APS-C sensors and showing that medium format can get more detail. Well that was a long time ago. Now that guy is shooting micro 3/4 and trash full frame. Can you get more detail on medium format?
Appreciate your honesty! I am so torn between the A7RV and the GFX 100 ii or S ii, just seems like Fuji is forcing me to buy a Sony. In my opinion those Fuji photos are waaaaay better ❤️
One of the biggest differences between 35 mm full frame and the medium format is the 14 bits versus 16 bits. The information contained shows a lot in the shadows and the overall gradation of color.
This might get lost, but some fast full-frame lenses do have an image circle large enough to cover this sensor. For example, some of the Voigtlanders. Take a look at Benj Haisch's channel if you want some examples.
What nobody talk about is how much more information you get from the gfx to play with. and honestly the light room dont give you the full potential of the gfx out. you can never push a fullframe camera like this. thats what i learn from the year. But your right for every jop the right tool. this is more important:)
I enjoyed your video. I would love to know why, when photographers make comparisons, they don’t consider the most important aspects of photography, and that is Printing Images? I would have liked you to print a life size print of your model with the Fuji and Sony. So if she is 5 foot 5 inches, print them that size and compare them. Everything you put on the computer or on line looks good. So next time do a real test and print the image.
I see someone has caught the synthwave bug. Also if you shoot with a Phase One or a Hasselblad it would make more of a difference cuz their sensors are bigger and have more color depth.
Thanks for sharing and showing this I saw it before by an other photographers page and now I don't have to buy small mini or full medium format for what I shoot and also my age over 65 I stay with Nikon's full frame still DSLR D800 ,in progress for getting D850 or the upcoming Z8
Nice video. Also god that you highlighted the typical digital medium format sensor size vs the larger medium format size that’s seen in cameras costing 40k
It's a pretty fair analogy to compare an APS-C sensor to a 35mm FF sensor, or maybe even a 1" sensor to a 35mm FF sensor, depending upon how large the MF sensor is, to get an idea of what the difference is with regards to focal length/field of view multiplier, f-stop/depth of field multiplier, and overall capacity to capture light on the image plane. Most photographers who have shot extensively with both are aware of the differences. The amount of light on the sensor is naturally going to be greater, the larger the image plane (sensor), but taking into account photoreceptor site size, lower resolution sensors, with larger photoreceptor sites, will perform better in lower light conditions. 24MP FF sensor outperforms a 50MP FF sensor, 50MP MF sensor outperforms a 100MP MF sensor, etc. all other things being equal (current generation electronics). MF has its own look to it, that comes as a cost in terms of size/weight of glass, body weight, and dollar cost of the overall system, but it's worth it if you want the larger image plane look. Being able to get that in a package the same size as an FF system (w/ vertical grip pro body, f1.2 glass, etc.) is an option that simply wasn't possible ten years ago. All boils down to right tool for the job. MF is more limited in that regard.
There is one thing that so far no one I watched has covered when comparing the sensor sizes, and it applies for even switching between an APSC and 36mm. Compression, which is very important when it comes to portraiture work. Bigger sensor let you keep the compression (distance) while getting a wider view. It is very well visible on the old analog huge format photos. So with a medium format, you can get a compression of a 110mm lens, while still having a fov like 85mm on a Full Frame when it comes to GFX, not that huge difference, but better visible on for example PhaseOne or analog.
That is not true and is a long busted myth. With that logic an iPhone portrait image would look horrible with its 6mm lens. There is only angle of view. The 110mm on the gfx has the exact same angle of view as a 85mm on full frame and therefore creates exactly the same image.
If you don't shoot sports and bird life, high end ff makes no sense. I had A7r4 and use A7r5, 100s always wins. Sharpness, ergonomics, stabilization, color science, jpg in camera, menu, noise, vibration, low iso file, high iso file, 100s wins hands down. Manny made the mistake of using the 100s for two hours and came to the wrong conclusion. However the 100s is not an all around camera. For the photos that Manny takes, GFX 100s for life! I am convinced that the reference is still the full frame but without exceeding the cost of 2/3000 euros. Besides, better GFX. This is my opinion as an owner of both cameras for years. Sorry google translator. 😊
Internet needs this video. I got the GFX 50s II and compared it to Sony A7 III with same Canon FD lenses. Sold the Fuji after 2 months. More money, weight, slow lenses...all that for 5% difference. Fuji is good if you want a crop compact camera with film simulation.
For the 16 bit color remember that you are looking at it at best on a 10 bit monitor which is your biggest limitation. Put it to paper in a quality lab.
So true
But more colours means more room for adjustments, other than that I am happy even with 8 bit image quality as a final on screen image, with some exceptions in sky gradients.
Thats even more of a limitation. Even a high end printer doesnt come close to the possibilities of digital displays. The Canon ProGraf hast the ability for about 100.000 to 1.000.000 halftones. A 10bit Display has 1000 times more colours.
I think you are confusing the colors displayed in the end and the CHOICE of colors at the time of shooting and post-processing.
It's a bit like if - being able to display only 256 different colors on a drawing for example - you declared that a box of 2500 pencils would have no advantage over a box of 300 pencils to make your drawing.
16 bits is largely superior to 14 bits by definition, because the "color palette" allows a wider choice of shades, and therefore a more natural final result (in 8 or 10 bits).
I work every day on a Medium Format in native 16 bits (Hasselblad H5D-60 with "MF Full Frame 4.5x6 » CCD sensor) and I can assure you that for the restitution of flesh tones, I have not found anything equivalent.
There are 16 bit professional monitors
I’m a full-time Digital Tech in Chicago, I agree with some of the information that you’re seeing in your video. Being a photographer is like being a Carpenter. You pick the hammer that you need for the job.
Depending on how the photographer shoots (Lifestyle, people, table top) that will determine the type of camera you get.
Shooting with the medium format, phase XF system 100 -150 MP is a slower and more methodical way of shooting. On the other hand, the GFX system is a happy medium between medium format and shooting with a Mirrorless system. Here is a example from a job last summer. We were shooting the GFX 100 and the Sony around 5000 ISO for a setup at night. The photographer was shooting stills while they were filming the commercial at 9pm inside of a large camping’s tent. The DP wanted LED lights mimicking a lantern between 3 young girls camping. I was pleasantly surprised when using capture one (NOT Lightroom) how good the files looked in the shadow detail held in the uncompress Raw file. I zoomed in on one of the talents faces that was about 50% of the frame and I could see that she was lit a little under exposed. I could see the eyelashes and see that her pupils are dilated. The Sony files were OK, nothing to write home to mom about,the shadows are blocking up. But this photographer had worked extensively with a GFX 100 system so he knew the equipment and the software (Capture One)limitations.
I’m very glad that most photographers actually rent a Med Format from Doddcamera.com or Lens Rentals.com. or Borrow Lenses.com Don’t go out and buy something cold turkey without renting it first. Pretty much how Manny did his side-by-side with his shooting style. Renting something over a holiday weekend may/may not get you an extra free day of Rental to play with the equipment that you want to consider purchasing or rent for a job.
disclaimer: I’m a Fuji shooter and 99% of my jobs. Photographers want to use Capture One for every Professional job that I am a Digital tech on.
I think we’re starting to reach the point of diminishing returns. Paying more for smaller increments of improvement. Having said that, the GFX is an amazing piece of tech and I’m glad Fuji entered the Medium Format space to continue pushing technology and innovation in photography.
Photography has plateaued in terms of technical capabilities. If you have to punch into 200% to strain to see the most subtle distinctions, the point is moot because no one is doing that. Now, more than ever, media is being consumed at the speed of light. Back in the 90s or aughts, a photo like the one at 7:07, across two magazine pages, might have caught people's attention. But now, ppl scroll right past something like that on Insta in 5 seconds (if even that!) I liked what I saw with the Fuji GFX 100s here, but even with the Hasselblad $45,000 digital backs, I doubt if your average person would notice any difference from a Canon R5 in the way most media is consumed today, which is on cell phone. I will say that the one exception is lenses. Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference.
Agree, "Those $50,000 lenses major productions are using to shoot big budget movies still probably make a difference." Cause you are in front of a 16 feet wide by 9 feet high or 20 feet wide by 12 feet high screen , the highest resolution optics and lens are a must.
It has not plateaued. Human eye can see 20 stops of dynamic range. Cameras still have a lot of room for improvement.
I agree, and you're right about lenses for movies. Anamorphic lenses specifically with a 2x squeeze or beyond have a visibly different look, and all cost 10,000 or more for the real deal. But I also believe HDR will be important in the future, as display technology advancing will allow for finally dynamic range to matter beyond the ability to edit. Itll matter in end delivery. But that will take some time, and ultimately it'll be displays leading the charge more than the actual cameras, but it will allow us to use the cameras more fully.
I've been saying this! I stepped out of the photography game to focus on learning and mastering videography, but when I came back and bought another photography camera, I was blown away for two reasons: 1) the autofocus is SO good 2) the raw images didn't look THAT much better than a 9 year old Nikon D750... there was a difference but the actual image quality was very close.
@@rockmusicvideoreviewer896 That's why we have HDR option in the cameras. HDR is more that 20 stops.
When people talk about sensor or negative size impacting depth of field, a crucial detail they miss out on is that it's not a 1:1 comparison. If you put a 35mm (focal length) equivalent lens on a camera with a 6x7 negative vs an actual 35mm lens on a 35mm negative, the 6x7 shot would have significantly shallower depth of field at the same aperture and field of view. There are no digital sensors that big. The "medium format look" comes from different DoF at comparable field of view and the visual impact of that is greatly diminished when the sensors are actually really close in size and aspect ratio (like FF Sony and Fuji GFX). Even the largest digital sensors are only like 645 negatives and to be fair, you would start to see a real difference there, but what do you know, that's what you have to pay $20K and up for. Don't sleep on 16bit colour though, if you're shooting for a magazine or a big campaign and your images area going to be retouched by elite level techs, they'll wish you shot everything in 16bit
I have been shooting with the Fuji 50sii for about a year now and I just love this camera. I still have my Sony's for most of my run and gun corporate work but the color rendition and filmatic look that I get from the Fuji is not matched by Sony. The autofocus sucks compare to the Sony, but sometimes the images that you get with Sony cameras are too digital looking. If you want to slow your pace down and focus on the art of photography I truly enjoy shooting the Fuji over Sony's.
I agree. I just brought a Fuji XT5 and love this camera images. I haven't picked up my Sony a6400 for photos since.
100% agree
to me all the digital current sensors that I've seen look very digital looking, none have any filmatic look (imho). Any old digital FF camera blows it away, If I want some of that filmic look on digital (in my case I'd grab my old 5Dii + zeiss 50 1.4) but many other will do: 5d, d700, d3...
I shoot apsc and ff, and y have an analog mf and even an analog 8x10", the bigger the medium the heavier,bulkier and less portable the camera... so, it all comes down to what do you need for doing photos of what ...and where! I also use mi phone hahaha😊 ...being cruel and honest, for editing you need a special monitor and gpu capable of displaying all those bits of color most laptops don't go beyond 6-8 bpc 😢 and mid range monitors go from 8-10bpc... still far from cameras.
I think the reason for these " digital looks" are the size of the small pixels. I know this is going to sound weird but my 12mp sensor images look less digital than my 42 megapixel camera.
Being shooting the gfx for years and I 100% agree with you. Images are better but you pay in weight and features. I use it because I work 100% in studio and slow pace shots. In any other situation, I would go with FF.
Any other situation? Also for landscape? I don't think so...
@@ivo919 I think they mean if they had to hike or backpack to a landscape they would probably choose a camera with a smaller footprint?
I've seen quite a few landscape photographers use the gfx100s
@@ryanclouse299 The huge problem is that ultra wide lenses are not available for the GFX system, whereas there is even a 9mm FF lens from Laowa.
@@anadrol9934 but gf 20-35 outperforms everything on the Sony side
Man those SOOC images from the GFX look like they were taken with my Canon 35mm DSLR from the 90’s. Absolutely gorgeous.
And the Sony images look like they came from any Sony FF camera since the A7II lol.
In Full Frame vs Medium Format I think it can be best summed up as the more you can control the environment of the shot, the better Medium Format can perform in comparison to Full frame when all else is relatively equal. I feel like Medium Format leans towards "creating" the perfect shot where Full Frame is more able to "capture" the perfect shot.
You are right. The average person doesn’t look at an image like a photographer does. Shoot to move the “heart” and all else will follow.
Or as old school photographer Dean Collings said "Beauty is in the eye of the check book holder".
my phone shoots great pics.....
Skin tone difference is night and day.There's so much complexity there in the Fuji shots. It shifts from the warm yellows to violet tones to magenta. It renders the reflective complexity of the skin so much better. The Sony is way more uniformous in the way it interprets skin tones. Which can be good or bad. In portraiture a more simple rendition can be beneficial. But if you're looking for the absolute most light information, MF is probably gonna be it.
If you look at the picture at 1.05 . Under the chin you have almost the same yellow reddish tone in both pics, a bit more saturated in the sony one. But as you move down to the chest area, where the light hits more perpendicular, the sony gives you a brighter tone of the same color, while the fuji shifts to a colder more blueish lemony hue. And you get this variability all over the skin. There's just so much more color resolutiuon there.
Though it is far from accurate. I have yet to see someone outdoors with fluctuating color temperatures and hues in their skin from head to neck. The way her face looked white towards the center of the face is so unnatural looking. Is it stylized sure, but that's not reality.
Manny is there a reason you didn’t go for the 80? Or try a wide angle lens? I feel like something people misinterpret about MF is that it has to be shot like a FF camera and I think if you tried wide environment portraits and also the 80mm then reviewed your prints you’d be wildly surprised at how VAST a difference there is.
There is something you are missing here. Look at all the side by sides again. While the 110 is an 85 field of view it still has the compression of a 110! In every side by side you can see the background compression way nicer more compressed. That’s the medium format look! If you are on an 80 and it’s like 50mm equivalent you still get the compression of an 80 if you’re standing in the same exact spot. Because it’s not a 50 it’s actually an 80 but gives you a less field of view. That’s the medium format look and it makes things more three dimensional. As far as the 16 bit colors that you will see in editing latitude not sooc.
This ! , and this is what should differentiate between different crop sensors. Alot of reviewers go on to compare field of view and aperture crop , while completely disregarding the lens compression! A 85mm f/2 will perform will always perform like a 85 f2 regardless of the sensor size , as the actual physics and character of the lens would never change !
The real moment when mf would shine is at f/2.8-3.5 ff eqv where the fall off and bokeh in a far background would be much more smoother , while still keeping the much of forefront and mid ground in focus
@@BaldRavenHairedThis is completely wrong. Lenses or focal lengths do not produce compression. It is just a matter of distance to the subject plus (equivalent) aperture. This is hard science and not debatable. A 85mm 1.4 on full frame can compress exactly the same as a 108mm f1.8 on "medium format" - same distance and aperture size.
Lens design can still affect focus falloff and bokeh. But there is absolutely no inherit advantage towards full frame designs. In fact there are plenty of full frame lenses that offer a more "medium format" look than actual medium format lenses.
Lens compression is a myth and has been debunked endlessly. Just stop with that nonsense or just join the flat earthers 😂
@@RegrinderAlert @RegrinderAlert yes it's the all about the distance from the subject IN RESPECT to the focal length that is . A 28 f1.2 with even high close focusing distance ,can never provide the background seperation of a 85 f1.8 . Not to mention the compression .
There is a reason why m3/4's are not the preferred choice for portraiture. Because equivalent focal length of a 50mm still can't provide the background separation of a 50mm in ff terms . Similarly shoot a portrait in 135- 200 f2.8 in ff and you can easily get the "medium format look" from a full frame but it's just plain inconvenient to shoot a subject from just a distance. Not to mention the focal length of a lens doesn't change regardless of the sensor size ! The 110mm f2 Fuji is a 87mm f1.5~ in equivalent due to the larger sensor . Adapt the same lens to ff u get a 110mm . Adapt the lens to a apsc you get a 167mm f3 ! The compression and bokeh will remain the same , but the distance is increased and your shooting style changed !
I personally think the compression of 80mm is perfect for portraits. So 80mm of compression with a 50mm POV would be pristine.
I shoot (baby) MF, FF and APS-C. What I will say is this. With MF there is a 'look' that the other two can struggle to replicate at times, BUT... to derive that look you need to play to the strengths of the MF sensor which actually is not to shoot wide open and seek thin DoF/bokehilcious. If all your experience thus far in your comparisons are as shallow DoF as possible (like you show above).. then yeh the differences are slim to none in seeing 'a different look'.
Where I feel differences are felt the most is when you actually stop down the medium format camera. There exists this space, depth and breadth in the image between your subject and environment (which you haven't blown to smithereens with bokeh) that APS-C definitely struggles to replicate (even with f0.85 glass) or FF glass at an equivalent aperture. It's an 'environmental' portrait look, the buildings behind, windows, clearly defined with context, yet the image does not feel flat like it can do with APS-C and FF and instead this breathing room seems to exist. You have to get everything dialed in, the right lens, distance to subject, subject distance to backdrop etc, it might be f4 on MF and f2.8 on FF, something that stives to get about the same DoF or bokeh amount, but when you manage it and the two images look similar... the MF will have more space and life about it.
And also of course those f11 or f13 studio headshots, try some of those.
Basically in summary I have never felt the shallow DoF or bokeh was a strength of MF, and if all your comparisons are based around such styles then definitely its hard to see a difference with todays fast FF primes. The smaller the sensor the more flatter things feel at certain apertures. MF feels spacious but you'll only experience that under the right circumstances.
Same thing can be said about full frame vs crop sensors. Nowadays there are really no major differences but the perceived thought is that there is. Well there is the lack of super fast lenses but that's slowly starting to change. I've seen many RUclipsr's full frame vs crop sensor videos and the photos all come out looking the same, where you can't tell the difference unless you're told which is which.
One could argue that there is a BIGGER difference between DX and FF in terms of ISO performance than the FF vs MF. Truth be told, there has been A LOT more R&D in the FX/DX field than the MF space. That's where the money is so they pushed these "smaller" formats as far as they go, whereas MF is only a niche field. Anyway true medium format means H-series from Hasselblad and Phase One, and even THOSE are smaller formats than the smallest film medium-format :)
Two problems. The lack of pro level crop lenses. And. Crop bodies often don't have the same buttons and settings available. What's the point of buying a smaller Sony a6600 to then mount on the exact same 70 to 200 2.8 lens and then not have the performance of an A7S or A9?
There’s still a noticeable difference in high ISO performance. Also, a high end APS-C body comes close to a FF body and at that point, it’s like might as well go FF. More lens selection and I don’t need to do math to figure out the FF equivalent 🤷♂️
I agree KS. I have majority full frame mirrorless bodies, but when you have enough experience with crop sensor bodies, you can replicate a similar image. Ive been using my fujifilm X-H2 a lot more lately. The images I can get from it are just as good as my Sony and Nikon full frame cameras, but with a welcomed weight reduction. I don’t shoot a lot of poorly lit portraits regardless of me using FF or DX, so ISO performance has never been an issue for me. I think most ppl just run with the popular narratives instead of just getting out there and trying for themselves.
I shot with the Leica Q for years and switched to fujifilm XPro 3 and everyone still thinks I’m shooting a Leica. It’s hard to tell the difference if you’re not a photographer that shoots wide open. And even then it’s tough.
My last 3 assignments I have been using GFX100s and I once used the big GFX100 last year. The weight and the slow camera speed really meant for portraits and landscapes.
Next video will be titled “Why I Gave Up Full Frame for Medium Format”. That chat at the end, that full frame is pretty much all you need, is what I usually tell myself when a new lens with 1.4 or 1.2 aperture is announced. “I don’t need it. My f1.8 or f2.0 is pretty much there.” That conversation in my own mind happens about a week before I get the new lens with the bigger aperture 😂
😄
Too relatable lol
Before you get it it’s not your norm. After you get it you see all of the reasons why it costs more. The old adage is still true. You get what you pay for. If you can’t see the difference who cares. If you can and are anal like me it will drive you crazy once you can see the difference!
Great video Manny. As you mentioned, it really depends on context. Sure, the medium format is better, but is that slight difference in quality worth the much bulkier and slower system? Probably not for most shooters outside of those who are in a completely controlled studio environment. And once you've experienced the performance of a FF Sony or Canon, it's hard to go back, especially regarding autofocus speed and accuracy.
It’s not a slight difference in quality though, it’s far better on the GFX
@@jaychow94 I just watched this video in 4k and saw the images side by side. The difference seems marginal.
I would even say that it is difficult to tell them apart in a double blind test, especially if they aren't side by side.
@@DeletedDelusion You can't just go by two images presented on a youtube video. As someone who has worked with both extensively, there is a difference. The same difference that you see when you compare FF to APS-C.
I'm not saying that full frame is bad in comparison, just different. For slower things like portraits, I much prefer the look and handling of the GFX files. For fast paced action like sports shoots, I would completely avoid the GFX and use the Canon R5 which is an incredible camera.
@@jaychow94it’s really not, I love owned both
I use both commercially. The GFX has better image quality, the Canon is better at everything else. @@Yupthereitism
I do really love the skin tones from the Fuji over the Sony…wow ❤. What you are demonstrating is portrait photography, but would love to see a comparison with landscape, fine art etc
For me the biggest take away is that every camera has a purpose. And if you use the camera to it's ideal use case then you will get the images you want. From my perspective the Sony is 100% the better camera for you and what you shoot. For me on the other hand I shoot product photography in a studio where a camera like the Fuji would make getting the finer details easier. It's okay that medium format isn't for you, and I think if people watch this with an open mind then they can decide whether this camera will actually work for them or not.
You have hands down the best outtro. Genuine awkwardness. So good 😂
1st - turn off that electronic first curtain :D
2nd - go test out the PhaseOne Trichromatic 100mp ;) than compare colors and dynamic range.
I assume, that you adress the portrait photography area; in this case, the Sony and the proper glass will be better. I use the GFX 50s I for landscape photography and I see a big difference, because the image looks more plastic, like 3 dimensional and of course it depends what you are shooting. If you shoot a wall, there will be no difference.
Hi Manny, I was a Nikon guy for many years using FX full frame, about a year ago I purchased the 100s. Manny, I still use my Nikons but after working with the 100s for a while I found the clean-up on so-so shots are much easier and cleaner.
Great comments, Manny. I shoot both Sony and Fujifilm, and love both systems, but each has it’s own use case. I agree for studio or landscape, the Fuji is a fantastic tool - that resolution and dynamic range are incredible- but for run and gun the Sony is the much better choice. One thing about the user experience that I’ve noticed…the Sony feels a bit like a computer with a lens attached, whereas the Fuji feels more organic, almost an analog shooting experience. But again, both systems are wonderful tools that can create superior images.
Beautiful organic focus gradients, and pleasing colors, but 90% of the clients won't see a difference. Thanks for the video Manny!
I think the issues are that FF difference vs MF are much smaller in terms of IQ than from FF to smaller formats. For example the DOF advantage of MF is actually the opposite since FF offers faster lenses. And then you have FF bodies with far superior features like AF way above any MF.
good video
When medium format used to mean 6cm x 7cm vs 2.4cm x 3.6cm, there was a big difference. Nowadays medium format sensors are closer to 3.3cm x 4.4cm, I don't think there's much difference compared to full frame.
I have been so curious about full frame and how it compared to full frame. This video was awesome I hope you do more comparisons with type of gear!
To me the skin tones looked more natural with the GFX100s, except at 2:22 where the sony looks better. However, to be fair, i would match the white point and color in post (not straight out of camera). The sony looks warmer with more saturation and a different gamma. Look at the white singlet when side by side.
Of course, there is only so much we can see once compressed for you tube. I imagine that one of the reasons someone would go with say the Hassy is predictability in the color science and the excelent lenses, as much as the fact that it is medium format?
Every point you made is spot on. I’m shooting the Z8 and I’ve made the same observation.
I think it all comes down to knowing. Meaning, if you KNOW you get smoother tones and gradients then what are you going to do with that knowledge. That's different than, say, a business decision where you don't think the client will notice and you have to decide if it's worth it. Olympic races are measured differently than a high school track meet and there's a reason for it. Diminishing returns are a very real concept, but with that said "it's lonely at the top" in terms of ability and in terms of knowledge. So, I guess when deciding if medium format is worth it personally, it depends on where you see yourself in terms of the high school/olympian comparison. And also if it's in your price range.
"Your" refers to any reader, not necessarily the producer of the video.
Hi Manny. Thank you for this excellent comparison of the image quality of the GFX and FF Sony. As a Nikon Z System landscape, product and macro photographer, I have been quite satisfied with the image sharpness and detail I obtain from the Nikon Z System (Z7, Z8 and several lenses). However, as I do on ocassion produce very large prints *30"x40" and up), I've always had an interest in medium format. So, in your opinion, do you feel that the X2D with, say, the Hasselblad 120/3.5 XCD Macro lens would give me a very substantial improvement in image quality (particularly image sharpness and detail rendition) in the large prints? Thank you sir!
I don't think you a radical difference in the color until you do something like a landscape shot, with the radial gradation of color in a sunset or sunrise.
Exactly, which is why so many top landscape, portraitists and studio photographers shoot medium format. A handheld outdoor street portrait is hardly a definitive test where we can claim to have uncovered “the truth about medium format”. Lol.
I’m wondering if you would come to the same conclusion doing landscapes and architecture instead of portraits.
Good point
Hasselblad is a king here, but for landscape photography you don't need an autofocus.
Where the conclusion would be different is by using much more closed diaphragms. I don't really understand how we can realize the performance of lenses in the background (where the MF is much superior to the 24x36) if we "erase" the background with this horrible blur devoid of resolving power (since if the lens no longer displays details in the blur, it is because we are well beyond its optimal operating zone)
I know that it is very fashionable, this mania of making a sharp character "stuck" on a blurred background. But it does not do justice to the lenses.
I work for major cosmetic brands (Redken for example) and I can assure you that these photos with a collage effect would never be accepted. It probably works for Instagram, but not for B2B professionnal images of the "cosmetics" type for example.
For using MF every day (Hasselblad H5D-60) I can assure you that these portraits are NOT representative of what an MF can do in portrait. And even for a small sensor MF like this Fuji you can get much better results by using the optics to its full potential
If you really want to see what the optics give, shoot at ƒ/5.6, ƒ/8 or ƒ/11 in portrait outdoors or in the studio (I use both)
Thank you Manny. Your honesty is sincere. Had a great time watching your video. Bless
The really great asset of the GFX is that using an adapter you can throw fabulous Sigma Art primes on it. They are intended for FF but their image circle can comfortably cover 44x33mm sensor as well. Lenses like 40/1.4 or 105/1.4 do give the GFX another level of rendering, separation for very reasonable prices (considering the Fuji MF lenses). It is awesome!
Great video. Thank you. A side question; what’s the camera bag you’re using, seen at 1:14 ?
If you want fast, flexible, and easy to carry, then get full frame. I have APS-C with a full suite of lenses, Nikon Full frame digital and film, a full Medium format GFX digital system and medium format film, but the camera I always grab what I want to produce an image I'm going to sell, is my Fuji GFX system. I just got that GF110mm lens too. It's incredible. Only things I use another camera for are video, macros, and long tele shots. The dynamic range, color, and detail are just so superior on the GFX. My favorite thing are the completely recoverable shadows. Definitely not needed though to make a living. Sometimes I wish I had a Nikon Z8 system, or a Canon R5 setup too, but at some point I've just got to stop and focus more on creating artwork with all this gear. Anything used well is better than the best gear just sitting on a shelf.
Great video Many, my two cents are, the a7rv is one of the best that full frame has to offer, the Gfx not so much(some purists might say that it's not a real medium format)it would be interesting to see the A1 vs the best Hasselblad or phase one.
A1 is worse than a7rV in terms of image quality.
Manny, when I was video taping weddings back in the 80s ,90s early 2000s, if a photographer shot with a Hasselblad, he was given great respect. If you do Hasselblad I would say don't use one of thier lower priced ones.
I think you should have used a wider lens to compare both formats ( say a 50mm for meduim forrmat and 35mm full frame).. As larger sensor allows you to get close to the subject without the distortion you would see with an APSC or a full frame.
I used A7R2 and A7R3 for years and I finally moved to Fuji XT4 and now rocking Fuji XH2. Every Sony image you showed has the same green and yellow tones on Skin which I hated on my previous Sony cameras. It looks like after all these iterations, Sony still SUCKS on Skin tones. Fuji has the best natural even skin tones. I always had to correct the skin tones on Sony but on Fuji I do not have to correct them at all.
I shoot with the Pentax 6x7 and you can really see difference compared to a full frame camera. It’s a snail but my oh my the images you can get
Great video as someone that's been thinking about buying an X1D II 50C. Full frame sensors have come a long way and the gap between full frame and medium format is very small now unless you move up to things like the X2D with 100MP.
Probably the best comparison is between medium format and full-frame on film, because the different designs of sensors keep the comparisons from being apples to oranges. Also, film medium format is so much larger than full-frame that if there’s a difference, it will be more dramatic.
Thank you, you saved my money ! I hope all is well with now now, and that you've fully recovered from the robbery you suffered.
i wish ultra ultra wide angle lens are more popular like 9mm, imagine seeing photographers using 9mm lens, I'm gonna shoot this 9 mill gonna have a whole lot of different meaning
In Manny’s examples the Fuji had VASTLY superior skin tones. Massive diff.
That’s fixed so easily in post with a click or two
@@Yupthereitism yaa but in 1000 images?
@@CryptoKartels yea, use a color checker
I see the difference more in my prints. On the screen , I agree with you for the most part. Though it does seem I can push the raw files more with the gfx100s. Low light and high iso I get way better results also.
Guys who lift weights to impress girls don't realize that the only people who notice or care are other dudes - for the most part girls don't care. Photographers who use medium format cameras now to impress clients and viewers with image quality don't realize the only people who notice or care are other photographers - for the most part the average person/client can't tell the difference (even most photographers can't tell the difference unless you do a side by side comparison viewed at 100%).
The current disadvantages of MF outweigh the advantages.
What brand is that camera bag? I always wanted a compact bag for a pro body and a couple of lenses with other accessories. The one you have seems just what I need.
Would really like to know this too.
@@marcuswend7704 Found it after pausing frame by frame to figure out the logo. Moment x Fujifilm Rugged Sling
@@VCAPITAL33 thank you!
@@VCAPITAL33 at the moment I use a LowePro gearup pro L insert in a timbuk2 messenger bag. Similar size and works well (holds a little bit of extra stuff like water bottle and jacket too)
Thank you. Very good honest up front review. Beautiful model btw.
Have you tried using Canon EF lenses on Fuji? There is an adapter for it.
Dude! Audio levels !!! and channels!
Thanks, nice video! A question: what camera bag are you using in this video?
Shot Sony A7R4 for years and recently switched to Fujifilm GFX 50Sii and I miss the AF and speed of the Sony, but the IQ from Fujifilm is superb! Glad I switched.
Does anybody remember the old EGA computer monitors? They had 640x350 resolution, and showed 16 colors out of a palatte of 256 colors. And we were blown away by them when they came out - until VGA came out wtih 640x480 resolution, displaying 256 colors. But if you display an old image designed for EGA on a VGA monitor, it's not going to look a lot better.
How about televisions? I remember people saying that 4K TV's didn't look much better than the older standard LED TV's, and that you couldn't really tell the difference unless you were sitting within a few feet of them. That was because they were showing standard definition content on the new 4K screens. But when Blu-Ray hit the market, and people saw what actual HD content looked like, 4K television sales went crazy. You don't have to be trained to see the difference between an older LED screen and a newer 4K screen displaying HD content. It's totally obvious.
Now... if you are only taking photos to show on "normal" computer monitors, you're not going to see much if any difference between shots taken on full frame and shots taken on a medium format camera. That's because all the "normal" monitors display 8-bit color, which is 16.7 million colors. But have a look at those same phots on something like and Eizo 10-bit monitor (and a capable graphics card) that can display 1.07 billion colors and you WILL see a difference.
As someone already said, you need to put these photos to paper from a quality lab and then you won't have any question whether medium format is that much better. You don't want medium format for vlogging, or sports/wildlife obviously. But for portraits, landscapes, product photography, etc. you absolutely do want it.
Outro: This video is only meant to shine light and not throw shade. Find what works best for you to flourish and thrive. Never stop learning because photography is always a work in progress.
Beautiful work. Thoughtful content. Humble man.
Keep up the great work, Manny!
Which camera bag is Manny using here, please?
For me this GFX look is different and worth the price. I'm Sony user but if I had a chance to change it I would do it. If you want to have this fashion/cinematic look, medium format with better DR is everything.
This is a very good comparison between two formats. For me the GFX is a bloated FF-system. And here is why:
The 15 stops of dynamic range may only be important if you do photoshop heavily. Most cameras have a recorded output of around 12isch.
The lenses have a dynamic range too. Not all lenses perform equally at all frequencies.
If you like bokeh, then FF is the better system and more affordable.
I am not sure if the GFX50 is better since the photocells should be larger.
I would rather consider a real MF system such as the Hasselblad H6D-100c or the Phase One System.
Speaking of dynamic range and the recorded 16bits. Hasselblad was recording 16Bits with their 50MP senor but only 14Bits were processed.
Going down the line, how many bits can your monitor represent? 6, 8 or 10? 8-bit+FRC or not? In the end an image is getting diluted a fair bit before you can see it.
I recently discovered your channel and I'm fully enjoying the content. I must say after years of using APS-C I'm looking at full frame and the Canon EOS R8 looks very good. Keep up the content great work
I shoot with an A7RIV and chose it over medium format because of all the advantages you are talking about. Although I shoot landscapes mostly and can use the additional resolution, I feel with 60MP sensor, I have plenty of resolution to work with.. Another important consideration is aspect ratio. If I turn a 4:3 medium format into a 2:3 FF sensor orientation, I have to crop away. Then I lose some of the resolution advantage. Most of my landscapes are 2:3 and stitched panos.
One thing I dont like about 'medium format' is how broad that term is... Its anything smaller than large format (9x12cm) and larger than small format (fullframe, 3.5x2.4cm). the 'medium format magic' stuff began when comparing DSLR to Hasselblad (as far as I know they have both large and small medium format sensors)/Phase One, which is still smaller than smallest medium format in film era, but quite close. Compare those and the difference should be simmilar to comparing APS-C and FF. But this small medium format would be closer to APS-C than FF in that analogy.
At the 7:48 mark… what shoulder bag is that? That’s exactly what I’ve been looking for. How do you find it; recommended?
And merci in advance. Props and peace to you.
Everything you said relates to APSC vs FF comparison too. I just did exactly same test myself and can see much more difference between medium and a FF than FF and APSC.
Are you looking for a trademark out ro for your videos? Just to keep it consistent.
You can just say. “See in the next one” or “keep shooting, have fun, and thanks for watching”
I don’t think any of us care about the outro. Just keep making great content.
Thanks Manny. Always love your videos.
Did u try to edit these heavily? See the difference in the file size, it makes a differenc in how much you can push the files in editing. Other type of photography rather than just portraits. Food / realestate etc.
I do always shoot with my sony when it comes to portraits cuz its faster and i dont need the extra juice but in realestate i use the GFX and thats a big difference in how much i can pusch the colors imo and Drange.
Thanks for a great video! Muy bueno!
So with the same logical path, is FF really worth it over APS-C? Love your stuff Manny
Yeah, do answer ,pls!
Thing js this is not full medium format.
The crop diff in full frame vs APS-C is 1.5x.
With fullframe and this semi medium format its more like 1.2x.
@@j5daniel182 Yes, the step is larger, but is it too large? Not for me with my needs but I'm far from Pro...
The APS-C sensor is half the size of the full frame sensor, so the difference is quite noticeable.
@@adamadamis APSC 60pct of FF vs FF at 42pct of the GFX. I've never shot FF, but I don't miss anything now so I'll side-step that insecurity lol
If you really want to see a change in your images use a Hasselblad shoot film and have it scanned you’ll be stunned ! Use a 150mm lens!
Great video.
It is an interesting comparison, and your conclusion makes sense.
Most of the people who downplay medium format digital, *have never tried it* and want to justify their A7, which is perfectly fine.
I do a lot of still life and landscapes. Medium format *always* wins when you compare back-to-back to full frame. On their own, you'd never spot it.
It’s still hilarious to me that sensors significantly smaller than 6x4.5 are considered medium format nowadays. (being very envious here)
Should't medium format only be 6x7cm? I would never buy a 6x4.5 camera...
@@ivo919 my experience is with 120 film, my Yashica takes square pictures, 6x6 and the pinhole cam does 6x12. So as long as one side is 6cm I’m fine with calling it MF :)
excellent video, I love manny's videos
Always great videos. I agree Medium format for commercial work but for most work full frame will get the job done.
Years ago when the EOS 10D was the camera I those days. I remember going to a seminar by a photographer and he trashed APS-C sensors and showing that medium format can get more detail. Well that was a long time ago. Now that guy is shooting micro 3/4 and trash full frame. Can you get more detail on medium format?
Real, truthful, valuable content. In the end, the eye is stronger than the equipment anyway.
Thank you for a fair comparison. I know I shot at a meetup and a guy was shooting this camera but I did not see a big difference.
Manny always shows my city off in a beautiful way. Excellent video. Beautiful model.
Appreciate your honesty! I am so torn between the A7RV and the GFX 100 ii or S ii, just seems like Fuji is forcing me to buy a Sony. In my opinion those Fuji photos are waaaaay better ❤️
Could you please name two cameras that suits shooting for big clothing companies? And what lenses suits them best?
Great Video!
Appreciate the perspective
One of the biggest differences between 35 mm full frame and the medium format is the 14 bits versus 16 bits. The information contained shows a lot in the shadows and the overall gradation of color.
Great video. Love the new wide-angle talking head setup!
This might get lost, but some fast full-frame lenses do have an image circle large enough to cover this sensor. For example, some of the Voigtlanders. Take a look at Benj Haisch's channel if you want some examples.
What nobody talk about is how much more information you get from the gfx to play with. and honestly the light room dont give you the full potential of the gfx out. you can never push a fullframe camera like this. thats what i learn from the year. But your right for every jop the right tool. this is more important:)
If not Lightroom, what's your favourite tool for developping your raws?
capture one :)@@beyondthecutworldwide1
Which should I choose between GFX50SII and A7RV?
I usually shoot people, group activities, and landscapes.
If you shoot people then what you need is a gun, not a camera
I enjoyed your video. I would love to know why, when photographers make comparisons, they don’t consider the most important aspects of photography, and that is Printing Images? I would have liked you to print a life size print of your model with the Fuji and Sony. So if she is 5 foot 5 inches, print them that size and compare them. Everything you put on the computer or on line looks good. So next time do a real test and print the image.
Oh you can see the difference for sure! I love my GFX 100s!
I see someone has caught the synthwave bug. Also if you shoot with a Phase One or a Hasselblad it would make more of a difference cuz their sensors are bigger and have more color depth.
Thanks for sharing and showing this I saw it before by an other photographers page and now I don't have to buy small mini or full medium format for what I shoot and also my age over 65 I stay with Nikon's full frame still DSLR D800 ,in progress for getting D850 or the upcoming Z8
Nice video. Also god that you highlighted the typical digital medium format sensor size vs the larger medium format size that’s seen in cameras costing 40k
And what happens when you export either one in JPEG 8 bit color?
It's a pretty fair analogy to compare an APS-C sensor to a 35mm FF sensor, or maybe even a 1" sensor to a 35mm FF sensor, depending upon how large the MF sensor is, to get an idea of what the difference is with regards to focal length/field of view multiplier, f-stop/depth of field multiplier, and overall capacity to capture light on the image plane. Most photographers who have shot extensively with both are aware of the differences.
The amount of light on the sensor is naturally going to be greater, the larger the image plane (sensor), but taking into account photoreceptor site size, lower resolution sensors, with larger photoreceptor sites, will perform better in lower light conditions. 24MP FF sensor outperforms a 50MP FF sensor, 50MP MF sensor outperforms a 100MP MF sensor, etc. all other things being equal (current generation electronics).
MF has its own look to it, that comes as a cost in terms of size/weight of glass, body weight, and dollar cost of the overall system, but it's worth it if you want the larger image plane look. Being able to get that in a package the same size as an FF system (w/ vertical grip pro body, f1.2 glass, etc.) is an option that simply wasn't possible ten years ago.
All boils down to right tool for the job. MF is more limited in that regard.
Where is this train shot in Chicago? I'd love to check this out @Manny Ortiz
There is one thing that so far no one I watched has covered when comparing the sensor sizes, and it applies for even switching between an APSC and 36mm. Compression, which is very important when it comes to portraiture work. Bigger sensor let you keep the compression (distance) while getting a wider view. It is very well visible on the old analog huge format photos. So with a medium format, you can get a compression of a 110mm lens, while still having a fov like 85mm on a Full Frame when it comes to GFX, not that huge difference, but better visible on for example PhaseOne or analog.
That is not true and is a long busted myth. With that logic an iPhone portrait image would look horrible with its 6mm lens. There is only angle of view. The 110mm on the gfx has the exact same angle of view as a 85mm on full frame and therefore creates exactly the same image.
Do you have a video where you talk about that ceiling-mounted track system for your lights and softboxes?
If you don't shoot sports and bird life, high end ff makes no sense. I had A7r4 and use A7r5, 100s always wins. Sharpness, ergonomics, stabilization, color science, jpg in camera, menu, noise, vibration, low iso file, high iso file, 100s wins hands down. Manny made the mistake of using the 100s for two hours and came to the wrong conclusion. However the 100s is not an all around camera. For the photos that Manny takes, GFX 100s for life! I am convinced that the reference is still the full frame but without exceeding the cost of 2/3000 euros. Besides, better GFX. This is my opinion as an owner of both cameras for years. Sorry google translator. 😊
Internet needs this video. I got the GFX 50s II and compared it to Sony A7 III with same Canon FD lenses. Sold the Fuji after 2 months. More money, weight, slow lenses...all that for 5% difference. Fuji is good if you want a crop compact camera with film simulation.