Fujifilm GFX 50s With Techart Adapter - GF 110mm f2 vs Sigma 85mm Art

[@Sondercreative]

Fuji GFX - geni.us/fujigfx Canon 5DSR - geni.us/canon5dsr Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art - geni.us/85mmart Fuji GF 110mm f2 - geni.us/110f2 Techart Adapter - bhpho.to/2E50zFH

[@user-fza3]

I wish that you try them both on f4 for video shot. Thanks for video

[@simeonkolev1231]

Dude you are really amusing :) when you get closer the 1.4 lens is supposed to be weaker because the focus is many times shallower. You are comparing shots that are not equalized in terms of DOF, distance, crop... and about colors... Let's just say that there are a lot of mistakes that can mislead people that have no idea what is happening here.

[@Sondercreative]

Simeon Kolev what are you on about man? You rarely make any valid points. Explain that again properly relative to the context of the video and after you understand what was being demonstrated then we can talk.

[@simeonkolev1231]

Do not get me wrong :) I am not trolling. I am just saying that the test was not set in a way to get real results with real accurate conclusions. First - you have to measure the WB and set it correct for both cameras because those lenses have different color renditions. Second - you have to calculate the DOF and test the lenses at wide open and equalized DOF. The 110mm 2.0 is ~90mm 1.7 on 35mm sensor if you take the wideness of the frame. If you take the height it is more like 80mm 1.5 Third - please use a tripod to and try to make the distance between the camera and the model the same. Those things are kinda important when you are testing and comparing at least to me. If you are closer with the Canon especially with this 1.4 Art lens you will get less detail especially at 1.4. If you do not make a custom WB you will get different colors. Also a close portrait and a full body one will show different results. If I were you I was going to include both. In a full body both lenses will have different background separation effect and sharpness. Also I saw another mistake in one of your other videos. Using the same raw converter does not mean that the settings for noise reduction for one of the cameras will have the same effect on the other one. I suggest you to leave the noise reduction to 0 in order to keep things fair. Or if you need to apply noise reduction do it on an already converted TIFF files in order to be sure that it applies the same amount of noise reduction. I am mentioning that because somebody can think that one camera has more noise but it will be a mistake because converters apply those settings differently when they detect the camera. After you export to TIFF/JPEG/... it does not matter - it works equally on all files. And yes getting closer to a subject will not make the lens sharper - it can fill the frame with bigger subject which can look like you have more detail. And one more thing - comparing lenses is not that simple, please try to make at least 4-5 scenes with different lighting scenarios. I am done :) I have many more things to say but I do not have the time right now. BR Simeon

[@Sondercreative]

Simeon Kolev ok why don’t we talk properly you’re welcome to give me a call let’s discuss this properly instead of just having a back and forth like this. It’s not effective and tone of voice is never present. You’re obviously passionate about gear too. Email is in the about section.

[@simeonkolev1231]

I will be glad to talk to you. Those comments/online chat sessions are making wrong impressions sometimes about the real tone of the discussion because we do not know each other. Please find me on facebook if you have an account there facebook.com/simbon4o/ we can chat there.

[@Guenounovitch]

@@Sondercreative Before saying anyone is "on" something get your facts right. that's not even a good way to answer to anyone. ridiculous

[@bernios3446]

Almost all Sigma lenses I have used render with a warm tone, so the color difference you find may very well result from the lenses. As your results with the Sigma on Fuji show that this is the case.

[@Sondercreative]

I agree the lens is causing the majority of it although even with the same lens on both the cameras do still look noticeably different.

[@garelalexandre3252]

hi do you know where i can fix this adapter , i bought it with your video , but a year after , this adapter fail , and techart does not reply to any of my email .. cheers hope you can help

[@RagingBubuli]

Use CaptureOne for GFX RAW files!

[@Sondercreative]

I do, just not on KZbin.

[@Pentax67]

I know this video is old but as a GFX 50S and GFX 100 user and long time film shooter I want to say that Fuji color science is among the best ever. Fuji Pro 400H has 4th color layer and no one came to match them same in camera sensors. GFX 50S has 14 bits color depth and GFX 100 16bits, full frame camera are far from that. Dont forget that +2 bits rate is world apart, it's like doubling. The thing is you need to understand that EUROPEANS and ASIANS have different skin tones and preferences. Asians LOVE whiter skin (same for makeup, they are using whitening creams) and europeans prefer (mostly) more warm and tan. So Fuji GFX 50S implimented what japanese (asians) LOVE to see : whiter skin and mangenta tones. It's a big picture behind color science, and also some racist science behind Kodak and their film not seeing black people in 1950s Also 85mm f/1.4 on GFX is 67mm f/0.9 (or 0.8) and 110mm f/2 is 85mm 1.4 , in terms of depth of field (aperture stays the same), it's not similar that let's say 85mm 1.2 on Full frame because f/0.9 is shallower than 1.2

[@Sondercreative]

I shoot architecture and portraits. I find cameras from Hasselblad and Phase One do far better when it comes to colour. The difference is immense. I think the higher end MF cameras from Fuji need a commercial grade colour profile. Not a profile that looks like such and such film but an actual profile that can make best use of the 16-bit sensor it has. Film profiles are equivalent to 8bit colour profiles. It's basically an instagram filter, great for an X-T series camera but not for a 16-bit MF camera. Having said that, you're absolutely right about skin tones and how they were represented in the past. I don't think that's the case now with any of the medium format cameras currently available. In any case, I think Hasselblad does the best job when it comes to colour. Finally, I can't recall but did I compare the 85mm to an f1.2 lens?

[@TheSnickAsaurus]

Canon more accurate? Not sure if this is true just a thought, but I thought Canon's debayering process is innaccurate on purpose to achieve that magenta/teal imperfection that usually is more appealing to the eye. I'm pretty sure the x-trans filter on the Fuji is geared more towards proper tonality, gradients and digital gain. That being said, if you notice the colors of the face, the Fuji delivers much smoother color transitions respectively, the Canon has like greenish/yellow highlights (could also be lens related but just a thought) I appreciate you making this video! Would love to hear your thoughts further if you get a chance 😊

[@Sondercreative]

The GFX also has a Bayer sensor because Sony doesn’t produce a medium format sensor using Fuji’s xtrans tech. I don’t think canon is perfectly accurate when it comes to colours however in the images I took as part of many comparisons I did, canon did display more accurate colours compared to the GFX. This of course wasn’t an extensive test nor one I would say was entirely scientific, but in any case the majority of images taken with the GFX had a more significant purple tint to them even when the environment I was shooting didn’t have that.

[@PaulBryanTV]

GFX colour science is and has been proven even in Bayer sensor to be largely more accurate than Canon. Ofcourse you have to get the WB and everything correct to begin with.

[@ilkercelik_com]

13:21 You Used HSS on Canon. That is the reason of the main difference of the white balance. Flash Curve is totally different with HSS and Without HSS. HSS flash curve is actually composed of many flashes fired, one just after the other in low power. Therefore the images with HSS are exposed to lower (so that warmer) flash curves. On the other hand, the flash without HSS has only one flash curve which reaches the cooler end at the top. In total, flash without HSS gives around 5500 Calvin, which is desired, and accurate in mid day time or in Studio. Simply put, you used around 400 Calvin warmer light with Canon and got a warmer face in the image. It is easily seen on the Canon Photo. The face which is exposed to warm light is warm where as the white car on the right which is far from warm HSS light is very cool. The case is valid for the sky as well. Look at the white balance contrast of the overall field at the photo on the right. Among Fuji, Canon, and Nikon, Fujifilm GFX has the best and the most accurate color science. I think you were unjust to Fujifilm about this. You just missed a point.

[@Sondercreative]

3:21 I’m assuming? You’ll notice how the shutter speed on the Canon is at 1/200s which means HSS wasn’t used.

[@ilkercelik_com]

@@Sondercreative Very sorry, for the time refferance. I meant 1:21 . Sync speed of Canon is 1/640.

[@Sondercreative]

@@ilkercelik_com yes to that I agree then however, I didn’t discuss the colour differences there because of the fact that I used HSS. The points around colour were only made when both were shot at their respective sync speeds and without HSS.

[@ilkercelik_com]

@@Sondercreative well you are right, you mentioned the color on the second image examples. Moreover maybe i over reacted. But i thought in any case the conditions, parameters, flash properties, and power were not equal. Flash light to ambient light ratio is important as they have different color temperatures, slightly or much, depending on the time of the day. If you had not used flash, if you had used exactly the same parameters, if the images had the same exposure by ambient light only, then the difference in color science would have been seen better, maybe. I would like to see how canon and gfx highllight areas would react to surrounding colors, to blue sky for example. In any case well done. I appreciate your effort and your work very much.

[@tonyjacky2007]

hi, just want to clarify that Sigma ART 85.4 on GFX won't have any dark corners, right? thankss in advance

[@8731854]

ys

[@Australianchessplayer]

I do not understand why lenses designed for Canikon DSLRs have image circles large enough to cover the sensor in the GFX50s. Do you?

[@Sondercreative]

MandurahChess it’s mostly because that specific medium format sensor is actually quite small relative to what a lot of photographers consider actual medium format. Also not all full frame lenses cover the sensor in general wider angle lenses can’t cover that sensor except for tilt shift lenses.

[@duodua4130]

Don't ask him he's clueless.

[@Sondercreative]

Wungo Wingo thank you for the view and comment, it helps my channel haha

[@jensdanbolt6953]

​@@Sondercreative Why do you give people halfway answers like that? Is it not better to say you do not know? Sure, it *helps* that it's not as big as traditional medium format film, and longer lenses tend to have bigger image circles than shorter ones, but that doesn't answer *why* an image circle designed for the 35mm format covers a bigger sensor. The actual answer is that it does because Sigma designed it that way. The question then is why they did that, and the most likely answer is that they did it to improve corner image quality. Making the lens bigger is one of the simplest and most effective ways to improve corner brightness and resolution, but it increases the size. It's a brute force method, but it's effective. Leica lenses are so expensive because of the brand, but also because of how difficult it is to make such high quality lenses as small as they do. Go into a camera shop sometime and look at for example the Leica 90mm f2. The quality of that thing is an absolute marvel for such a tiny lens, and some people are willing to pay big bucks for that, and for the brand. But that Leica 90mm would have no chance trying to cover the GFX sensor, despite being slightly longer than the Sigma 85, which Sonder here suggest is why the Sigma 85 can cover the GFX sensor... Another example would be the Sony 16-50mm kit lens, which in its pursuit of compactness has an image circle that at some focal lenghts doesn't even really cover the sensor it is designed for. If you turn off auto-corrections in a RAW program, you will see corners that are pretty much black.

[@Sondercreative]

Jens Danbolt my reply was not discussing any specific brand but full frame lenses in general. You’ve gone a little off the point and read way more than what I actually said.

[@idealab2798]

Can I use IS of full frame lens on GFX body ?

[@1028Will]

The difference in color seem to be the lens. gfx with sigma renders warmer than with the gf lens.

[@fullandstarving]

Is it really a huge jump if i change from full frame into medium format mirrorless? just consider to buy phase one for commercial work but the price is near 4 times than fuji Gfx...please suggest me :) thank you mate!

[@danielg7216]

With the 85mm 1.4 adapted on the Fuji Can I shoot actor headshots with this lens or just get the 110mm

[@Sondercreative]

Joseph Daniels I would personally recommend the 110mm. It’s just too good of a lens to consider alternatives. Adapting is not the best option for paying clients.

[@danielg7216]

Mitakon 85mm 1.4 for the Fuji GFX is the crop factor still involved? I rarely shoot headshots so paying 2800 for a lens i can’t use in studio is worthless

[@Sondercreative]

Joseph Daniels yes the crop factor is still present. The 85mm will have an angle of view of around 68mm lens.

[@simonkipper2657]

Zeiss135 f2?

[@1028Will]

Did you by any chance test the amount of vignetting as well as the resolution of Sigma 85 on GFX when stopping down? Black frames caused by smaller image circle normally look more pronounced when stopping down. I am curious whether the sigma 85 truly covers the entire 4433 sensor entirely from corner to corner...

[@Sondercreative]

Will Y. The sigma 85 can almost cover the larger medium format sensor too so it’s really does cover the full 50mp sensor. I haven’t seen any issues when stopping down but then I didn’t go past f8.

[@1028Will]

Kk thanks. I guess we will rely on the sigma 85 to fill in the hole between 63 and 110 then

[@AlainSTO]

Isn't high-speed syncing one of the cons of the Fuji vs the Hasselblad because it doesn't use leaf shutter? Wouldn't surprise me if that's why you couldn't figure out why it was being difficult in the beginning shots.

[@Sondercreative]

Alain yes but I’m the GFX can do HSS if I’m not wrong and you can effectively adapt lenses with autofocus and use a proper shutter. The X1D won’t allow autofocus for adapter lenses plus you can’t use flash or a proper shutter meaning artefacts and issues with banding.

[@olegasphoto]

4:08 блин, смени баланс белого и оба одинаково будут выглядеть. А он про колор ссаенс...

[@Sondercreative]

You need a reference point in order to correctly white balance in post and if you don't have that like most people on a shoot then you won't know what white balance to change it too. This is why it's an advantage to have accurate colours SOOC which Fuji seems to lack. Fujifilm leans heavily into magenta way more than most cameras and this can cause issues. It might be a minor issue but it's one nonetheless.

[@PhotoJohn80]

Since you said you’re an architectural photographer have you thought about using the cambo actus system with your Fuji? Maybe you have... I do architecture photography as well and I have my system on the way to me:).

[@Sondercreative]

I have tried that system and although it’s great I find it is way too much of a headache to shoot with in work environments. I hate systems that slow me down or cause technical faults especially when clients have someone with me; it’s not a good look. Personally, I prefer a stable, native system so if Fujifilm ever produce native tilt shift lenses, then the GFX series will start to look super attractive lol. Having said that, I know lots of people enjoy shooting with the Cambo system and it is a great system .

[@PhotoJohn80]

Sonder Creative I understand. Thanks for the reply. For me I was shooting 4x5 sheet film on a Sinar X when I started doing photography so well I miss having all those lovely movements and don’t mind slowing down some for that. When the studio went digital and used 35mm I was like grrrr I hate this with not being able to control my plane of focus and having to adjust my keystone in post. So I’m pretty stoked to try this system out. I’ve tried TS lenses but the control still isn’t there for me. You can’t shift and do rise/fall at the same time or you can only do a tilt in a certain direction too. I’m going to try and make a lot of technical videos with the system since there really doesn’t seem to be that many videos about it. Thank you for the good videos though and keep up the good work.

[@paulf3353]

Hi Usmaan, Thanks for the review. You should also try Canon 85/1.2 and 1.4 IS (yes, IS really works with GFX). Would you be able to upload a few RAW samples from Sigma and GFx?

[@d12eminem]

which Zeiss 135mm lens?

[@Sondercreative]

Rub I used the 135mm f/2.0 APO lens.

[@mk0x55]

Cool to see the cameras and lenses compared. The colors seem more natural from the Canon, but both appear to suffer from too low bit depth making the images look a bit unnatural in and around skin pores in many areas. From what I can see the Canon looks quite a bit behind in terms of how it can render what comes from the back of the lens... actually to the point that makes me wonder whether it wasn't some JPEG that came straight out of the camera (those tend to be visibly softer than JPEGs exported from RAWs in post). For example, I see a similar type of unsharpness in the Canon + Sigma image at 2:08 that I see in the Fuji + 110 (on the right) at 5:45. I'd say the Fuji image just looks like the Canon one from a sharpness perspective. This makes me suspect that the focus on the Canon might have been slightly missed, too - especially as the nearer end of the bottom eyelashes appears sharper than whatever that is further beyond it (including the skin texture right around the eye). For example, when shooting some cat portraits in darker conditions (100mm at f/2.8) I realized that getting the retina sharp was pretty difficult and when I finally got it, the eyelids and all texture around the eyes were out of focus so badly that I ended up tossing the images anyway. To me it seems that quite a significant amount of autofocus error can't really be eliminated when shooting a constantly moving subject like a portrait - but the shooter can get lucky nailing it in one of several attempts. How many shots did you try to take this way? (I mean in general some statistics like mean error (standard deviation) would be cool to have here, or at least some rough estimation, as it tells about the confidence in the focusing process that can otherwise wrongly be assumed to be 1.0.) To judge the sharpness, I would strongly prefer a static scene like a piece of architecture, manual focus with full magnification in live view, and absolutely shooting on a tripod, free from shake. Finally, I would quite like to see images taken with the lenses a bit stopped down (like f/4.0 or f/5.6) in addition to shooting fully open. Did you happen to try that outside the comparison? If so, are the results consistent with shooting fully open? (I think including stopped-down shots would make the test more forgiving of autofocus error when shooting non-static scenes.) All in all, interesting results, but I would personally need to investigate it deeper or at least get more facts about the testing to consider them anywhere close to being conclusive as far as sharpness goes.

[@Sondercreative]

Always good to see you comment on my videos, I really appreciate it. Bit depth wise they're both 14bit which is the standard, larger sensor MF cameras just have way more colours which are not needed for most of us but definitely useful for those who do need it. Sharpness wise I've tested it a bunch of times in a more controlled environment and even then the 110mm was way ahead of the Sigma even when the Sigma was stopped down to f2. This is not to say the Sigma is a bad lens because honestly, it's one of the best 85mm lenses ever made. It's just that the 110mm is that much better it's on par with the Zeiss. The only lens from Sigma which I think can beat the 110mm f2 is the 135mm f1.8. That lens is incredible and was slightly better than the Zeiss when stopped down but exactly the same wide open. Sigma make some amazing lenses and so far their 135mm is probably their best lens.

[@MarcS4R]

Great video mate. could you do a video of the Zeiss 135 on the GFX ?

[@Sondercreative]

I was planning on making a video with the 200mm f2 instead because it's autofocus, what do you think? I could throw in a couple of pictures with the Zeiss too maybe. Thank you for watching and the suggestion, much appreciated.

[@MarcS4R]

200/2 would also be very interesting. looking forward. i am considering getting just a GFX body and use it with my Zeiss 135 Apo first.

[@Sondercreative]

I think you'll be very happy with the performance, although the 110mm is definitely up there with the Zeiss.

[@qaiszureikat7146]

Hi Sonder.. Since you've mentioned Canon colors were more accurate, would you still let go of the Canon 5dsr to the Fuji GfX for the works of portraits? I have the 5Dsr and i may get my hands to buy the GfX for a really good price.. If that happens i have to let go of the 5DSR.. But I'm afraid I'm going to miss it.. Any thoughts and advice? Thanks

[@Sondercreative]

Qais Zureikat I’m keeping my 5DSR for a number of reasons. Mostly because of lens selection and capture one support. In regards to colours you can always use a colour checker passport which works great in lightroom. Awb in the GFX isn’t perfect but it’s very easy to correct. In any case the GFX is a better camera for image quality. Issue is the price just makes me think it’s not worth the slight increase in image quality because the difference isn’t massive. I won’t be buying this camera.

[@qaiszureikat7146]

Sonder Creative Thank you for your response..i dont think the images from the canon 5dsr won't be able to compete with the gfx on a professional level..plus the flexibility for more practicality is important like you said

[@Guenounovitch]

music taste at his peak

[@valentingonzalez4813]

I think it is always a good idea to calibrate the camera sensor before starting to work. Without calibration a camera will show colours out of tune, so to say. Without tuning, also an Stradivarius will sound badly...

[@Sondercreative]

How do you calibrate the sensor for colours please?

[@valentingonzalez4813]

hello Sonder. You need a gretag macbeth chart. Well it´s a little complicated in a few seconds, but I can send you a video that I made myself explaining the How To. From the colorLab archive of the chart you convert to the output profile you want to use in your work. (I have the ColorLab archive of the GretagMacbeth) Then you write the diferent values of the colours resulting from this conversion, so you now know the "real" value of the colours in the chart but in the colour space you are going to work with. Then you take a shot from the chart with your camera in good light conditions (not in deep shadows, not in the sun directly. I use to take care of a good colour temper... close to 5.500 kelvin) Then in Camera raw you have to open the picture and correct the grey density to match the real values from the chart. After driving the grey scale into proper values you will use the Red, Green, and Blue colors of the char (only this three) to approach their values to the real ones. This is easy once you know the procedure. I can tell you how. I´m thinking... my video is in Spanish language. Excuse my English, please, but I can prepare something for you to understand the way to do it. Belive me, there will be an before and an after for you capturing colours after calibrating your camera. I recomend to calibrate also in the studio, because the reaction to those lights can be a little different, but there will be a big change. If you give me a little time I will prepare something in English explaining the procedure. The result of the calibration can be saved in camera raw and then used on the developing of every image you upload from the camera authomaticly. Then the colours will not be a "savage horse". There is not a : I like the colours of this camera more than the colours of that other one... Simply they are not the real colours, because all them must be as the real ones or... they are not tuned. You will also save a lot of time correcting your images, because the composition of the colurs now is equilibrated. Do you understand the idea? Sure you can see my web or email in my channel... send me a message or give me your email. Perhaps it is a good idea to make this calibration well known.

[@SoundsandImages]

Good comparison of the lenses and systems, however, with a medium format camera it is not just the focal length that is wider than stated... Also the 100mp sensor will be the same size!

[@Sondercreative]

"it is not just the focal length that is wider than stated" sorry can you please explain what you mean? Also the 100mp sensor is much bigger than the 50mp sensor in the GFX.

[@SoundsandImages]

Sonder Creative yeah sure, with a given focal length being wider than stated on the lens due to a bigger sensor like apsc has a crop factor. F2.0 is effectively f1.4 and as I understand the next sensor coming it will be the same size and not like the 100mp hasselblads and phase ones..

[@Sondercreative]

Ah I see what you mean. Just to confirm the focal length does not change at , neither does the aperture. You can test this by shooting f1.4 on full frame vs f1.4 on APSC even with the same lenses. Angle of view will change and DOF will change IF you change the distance to your subject but these do not mean the actual focal length or the aperture have changed.

[@Savagetechdude]

What I am seeing is warmer colors coming from the lens. Not the Canon body. Also, you should have shot with the same exposure settings on the fuji to see how the depth of field compared. Also should have shot from the same spot to see how different the angle of view is. It doesn't make any sense to compare items if you don't use them the same.

[@Sondercreative]

Altered Exposure Image Design I was trying to match the angle of views as closely as possible. With a wider angle of view you step in closer and that will change dof. That was also the point I was making same angle of view but shallower dof. I agree about colour and the lens but the camera can’t work without the lens and they are still Fuji colours it’s a native lens.

[@RobHimself86]

1:18 Canon???

[@Sondercreative]

Robert Smith and Fuji :-)

[@peribe438]

You could also have compared Sigma 135 with Fuji 110.

[@Sondercreative]

Sigma didnt have that lens at the time.

[@bthemedia]

Autofocus adapter on the GFX cameras... so awesome! =) Even better that some fast full frame lenses have an image circle to cover the GFX sensor!

[@trulyoffensive446]

Okay, you lost me completely when you said that the Canon has more accurate colour than the Fuji. Go to dpreview, go to any sensor testing site like DXO, you will see that Canon typically has the least accuracy of all. The Canon colours are pleasing, but they are doctored. They add pink and orange, to get more pleasing skin tones. The Fuji is more neutral.

[@Sondercreative]

In all the comparisons I did fuji was not more neutral. The fuji had a very distinct magenta shift. Canon is not accurate but it definitely did a better job at reading the scene especially when it comes to skin tones. The tarmac is a clear indicator too. It's important to note that it seems the majority of the colour is coming from the lens.

[@trulyoffensive446]

Well, the sensor scores very highly, as does the camera, so something is causing it to do that for you. Either the camera you are testing is not good, or something in your pipeline is giving it that cast. Is your monitor profiled? Are you using the final version of Lightroom or Capture Pro?

[@Sondercreative]

Thinking Mantis monitors are definitely profiled and during the time of filming this the GFX was not yet supported by Capture One. Don’t get me wrong the sensor in this camera is on of the best on the market. It’s obviously better than the Canon. The GFX however has not had any real input from Fuji when it comes to colour or processing it seems because performance is identical to the Pentax 645z except the Pentax is better at shadow recovery. It seems like Fuji kept their sensor very stock which is fine cause it’s an incredible sensor but the fact that Pentax does a better job with shadow recovery and the colours are identical leads me to think they aren’t doing very much of their own processing or adding their own colour theory. Compared to Hasselblad, the colours are noticeably different and the best so far is Phase One. Both Hasselblad and Phase One put in a tonne of effort to get the most out of their sensors and they don’t keep theirs stock. This is when comparing the same sensors across the different manufacturers Finally the lenses make a big difference too. Much of the colour “science” is affected by lenses and this could be why Phase One does such a good job. Ultimately the GFX has a much better sensor compared to the Canon but the Canon does have certain advantages which can’t really be disputed.

[@trulyoffensive446]

I am not disputing that the Canon has some advantages, but in my experience Canon has the *least* accurate colour of all high-end cameras, by some margin. Canon prides themselves in having pleasing colour, not accurate colour. In fact, I sold my 5D partly due to this, and later confirmed it with testing of the 5D2, and so on. My daughter has a bright fire engine red push bike, and Canon was never able to get the correct colour of that, it always shifted into pink or orange. I currently use a Sinar Hy6 with eMotion 75LV, which is absolutely neutral in colour, but I will likely pick up a GFX 50S soon.

[@trulyoffensive446]

www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

[@garelalexandre3252]

I bought this adapter because all the reviews were good, but one thing was not .. it's the long-term test, it's been 15 months that I have this product, and overnight it stopped working normally I updated it but, nothing helps .. and the best thing is that I contacted techart, and they are not responding. and find out that there is no one in the world to repair their product. in short, a ring at 500 dolls, for a year + of shooting, it's expensive .. it will serve as an ashtray now, because no one can repair it, I am very angry .

[@EyeCaptureImages]

Getting closer to your subject makes a lens sharper? Care to try explaining that?

[@Sondercreative]

EyeCaptureImages doesn’t make the lens sharper, you’re able to pick out detail more effectively. Something further away will be less sharp relative to something closer. Bring your finger close to your eye, your eye isn’t getting sharper it’s just that you’re able to see detail in your finger more effectively.

[@martinyeung907]

godox can trigger hss

[@Sondercreative]

I know :) I just couldn't get it to work for some reason. Might have been a fault but I tried two different triggers with the GFX.

[@GabrielScindian]

Sigma 135 seems to have less CA

[@Sondercreative]

They're both about the same really. Lighting conditions do change when you're shooting outside so I'd personally take those results with a pinch of salt.

[@GabrielScindian]

@@Sondercreative Big thanks for posting the vid. I've gained clarity on my next purchase

[@steambuddy5680]

@1:15 they look the same

[@tarikbenali437]

Thanks you for this comparison.

[@kyles5258]

Hmm adobe has a very similar color profile for Fuji as it does Sony, which does not look at good as the Canon. I am going to send you a message on Facebook

[@TasteofTaboo]

adobe only renders nice colors from canon or leica who directly work with them, nearly everything else looks total bad in terms of skin ton. nearly the worst is who it renders nikon d800/850 files they look super digital / unnatural.

[@Sondercreative]

Martin Peterdamm I don’t think I can agree. Colours from xtrans sensors look fantastic. Many people love colours from Nikon too and objective comparisons have been done. Both the GFX and 645z has the exact same colour and look so I don’t think it’s adobe. Fortunately the GFX is now compatible with capture one so colours will look much better.

[@tedtedsen269]

canon is a hair better sharpness colors contrast and DOF gf lenses is overrated and priced to high i have gfx 50r and some lenses but not the 110

[@rockrl98]

b i g b r e n

[@Sondercreative]

?

[@rodrigopages1054]

have you ever just look at film medium format lenses? you dont need to get f1.8 or 1.4 lenes... its unnecessary F2 is plenty enough

[@Sondercreative]

I guess that would depend on the lens and focal length you're shooting. It also depends on how much light you want for the exposure. F2 won't ever be able to gather the same amount of light as f1.4 if the other settings remain the same. Also, a 105mm f1.4 will produce shallower DOF compared to a 110mm f2 if all other conditions remain the same. "Plenty" and "enough" are relative and also preference.

[@rodrigopages1054]

just go and look at the lens selection of medium format lenses that have been out for photographers. there has only been a couple of super fast lenses only used for IMAX filming all other lenses used by pro photographers are F2 F3.5 for High end fashion, fine art portaits. if fujifilm nor hasselblad nor phase one make such lenses that youre talking about its because clearly the professionals that use this camera systems dont ask for it because its not in their needs. i mean you think hasselblad or Phase one would deny to their costumers a lens that could be sold for 6k plus dollars each? i mean just think about it really... and it goes the same way for fuji i can assure you they developed this system of lenses along side professionals that probably did not even think of getting an f1.4 lens during the development of the GFX. here ill leave a link to phase one lens selection so you can take a look and keep in mind phase one offers a bigger sensor and they just came out with a 100mp back both monochrome and colour varients of it and theres no f1.4 lens not even an f2 for that matter the fastest one is 2.8 www.phaseone.com/lenses

[@Sondercreative]

Ok, let's clarify something when I discussed why Fuji should/can make an f1.4 lens the reason for it is because their sensor size is only slightly larger than full frame. The Sigma 85mm comfortably covers that sensor, therefore, I described how it's obviously possible to make a lens with that kind of aperture and cover the full sensor. Phase One and Hasselblad need to accommodate a much larger sensor size as well as their smaller variant. You can't compare their methodology to Fuji. Fuji isn't making a larger MF sensor camera. Even the rumored GFX 100mp will have the same sensor size, therefore, an 85mm f1.4 is feasible. Longer focal lengths around 150mm and above don't have wider apertures even for full frame because they would be far too large however mid to slightly tele focal length lenses don't necessarily need to be as big even with wider apertures. You're mixing up points and seems like you haven't actually understood what I'm discussing.

[@Sondercreative]

Mamiya had an 80mm f1.9 lens and that lens had to have a huge image circle to cover Film Medium format which is much much larger than the smaller MF variant that Fuji is using. Based on that f1.4 shouldn't be a problem.

[@rodrigopages1054]

I understand that the 85mm f1.4 covers the sensor and i know its feasible because such lenses already exist i mentioned that such lenses do exist but they are rare. But just because its feasible doesn't mean its necessary or even needed specially because Fuji is still aiming for high end pros to use this system which do not ask or seek such lens. What is important to understand here is that shallower depth of field for the type of photography this camera was thought and developed for, requires a minimum of it so it can show case the detail of the clothing or maybe the make up on a model rather than just make everything look out of focus with very little in focus like a lot of people lust after and wants and thinks its the best way to shoot a portrait or whatever. So if, for example a pro fashion photographer (which is the intended client and user of this system) is gonna end up stopping the lens to say f2 or 2.8 to get enough DOF so the clothing on the model he's shooting is in focus then its useless to have a lens with an aperture of f1.4 theres literally no need from the actual targeted clients for such wide aperture lenses. It could be a nice engineering achievement but other than that its probably a waste of time on research and development for fuji to do such lenses in my opinion other wise they would have done them already from the beginning And yes you can compare Phase one and Hasselblad to Fujis methodology simply because they are trying to take up market share from them so they have to take into account the whole market of MF cameras even if clearly they know not all of the pros are going to get their system. As a company they have to take them all into account to have a more all round better product to sell.