Well I ordered a used Fujifilm GFX 100s for 3k and the Gf 50mm f3.5 for a little over 600$. I've been doing a series of suburban/urban landscapes late at night and was previously shooting with a Nikon z7ii and the 35mm f1.4 and Voigtlander Nokton 40mm. I think the 50mm should be a pretty good light weight option but I was also looking at adapting some pentax 645 and Mamiya glass. I've also heard the Mitakon 65mm f1.4 is pretty good. Any suggestions or tips for someone who hasn't ever shot digital medium format?
What's the point of digital medium format? I get it with film because the negatives are bigger but what do you gain over a full frame on digital?
>>4492369more resolution, more dynamic range, cleaner high iso, different lens options>>4492368enjoy it, be sure to share lots of pics herei loved my GFX, but it really put the nail in the coffin for any "more resolution" desire and I went back down to shooting mostly ~24mpTTArtisan 50 f1.4 also has decent sensor coverageseems odd to do mostly night stuff and also get a slower lens, but have to assume you're already doing mostly tripod stuff anyways
>>4492371lol @ spending $3k on a TOTL speed oriented fake medium format mirrorless to use a ttartisan lenswhy even do that when fuji makes an official hasselblad slr adapter? and vaseline and step down rings provide the ttartisan experience
>>4492377It's very cheap and I already owned it for other systems, I still used GF lenses most of the timeSorry for mentioning it at all I guessWhat specific hasselblad lenses would you recommend instead?Did you forget to attach your example image of how poor quality that lens actually is?
>>4492377What bodies and lenses do you use?
>>4492380i use a 5d classic and 50mm f1.8 to take pictures of my penis and nothing else (yes, I’m over 6ft)
GF lenses are pretty complete at this point, they even have superteles and a 1.4x teleconverter. I've heard everything but the 100s ii has shit af but I'm guessing that doesn't matter to you. The GF macro lens sucks also (it is very bad good at 1x, which requires an extension tube that costs hundreds of dollars), go with an adapted lens. There's a spreadsheet out there of how compatible FF lenses are on GFX, apparently a lot of Canons can have their back baffles removed for great coverage... but IMO the point of going with GFX is the great lenses. Do you have a decent tripod?
>>4492369A bit more light, 16 but color, and 100mp for large printing or cropping. Honestly the lenses are a bit more but size wise they are roughly the same as canikon. If you aren't using autofocus for wildlife or sports you don't really lose anything.
>>4492382Yeah the AF doesn't really matter much to me. I'm using manual focus most of the time anyways since it's low light. I have a couple tripods I use but recently have been just using monopods. With the distance I was shooting at most of the lenses I was using there wasn't much reason to shoot about f4 or 5.6. the z7ii IBIS was pretty sharp with a monopod down to a couple of seconds which was more than enough for a clean ISO. We'll see with the gfx 100s though. I'll probably have to bring out the tripod or shoot from the car window.
>>4492377I rented a hasselblad x2d a week or so ago. Truthfully after editing they looked pretty much exactly the same as Fuji ones. I would go with hassy if I needed high speed flash but otherwise I don't really see a reason. Plus I could only use the electronic shutter of I was adapting anything.
i had a 50r and the 50mm 3.5 and the 65mm mitakon for a bit. sold the 50r and the 50mm and got a 100s and the 45mm 2.8. it spends most of its time with an adapted macro lens attached now lol, because i use it to scan my film. the mitakon is good, about what you'd expect from a large aperture lens on the cheaper side. otherwise it's mostly used for friends and family picsnormally i shoot film or apsc. the most noticeable thing about shooting on the 100s for me is that the files are giant and slow to work on my computer. another strange result i get with the 100s and had with the 50r is color banding on jpegs. which seems strange to me because i never had an issue with that any other cameras - compact, apsc, full frame, etc. probably user error since i haven't heard of others running into this. you could say just always shoot raw if you're going to go to the trouble to get a gfx. that's pretty fair but a lot of the time you don't want to deal with a 200mb raw file and its annoying for such supposedly powerful camera to have such a lame shortcoming. besides that, it's very nice
people hear 'medium format' and expect to get blown away. but as you'd guess from the sensor size, it's not radically different from ff
>>4492438Actual medium format film is noticably nice because you get very fine grain (except for 645) and pleasing film attributes in basically any scenario outside of super low-light.GFX Medium Format is like what... 1.2x larger than FF? Pretty sure 645 is 1.4x the size of 35mm/FF, and 6x7 is 1.5x. Except I'm absolutely convinced due to the way smaller pixel pitch you get worse colour rendition and less light gathering.
>>4492437If you get a GFX to shoot JPG you are a retard, simple as
>>4492368Just use a digicam. Trust. You can get one of those suckers at the thrift for 30 bucks.
>>4492368If you are looking for sharp lenses, GF ones are the way to go. For me it was too clinical and I've ended up using adopted glass on GFX. I believe for landscapes it will be good. As for static subjects and tripod operations - adopting glass could be an option. GFX raw's are super flexible so without problem you can use "film profiles" to match style of your previous work using filmstock.
>>4492368Old school photographer here Contax, Hasselblad now Canon 6D Mark III keep wanting to go down that rabbit hole you're looking looking at but I keep wondering if it's worth my time anymore.
>>4493597 contFor 35mm, got a 15mm, 28mm f2.0 ,35 f2.8 PC, 50mm 1.4, 85mm f1.2mm and 28-85mm zeiss in CY Mount, used to own a 200mm f3.5 Zeiss and 180mmf3.4 Angenuiex. The Zeiss zoom and their 200 mm are okay but kind of underwhelming for the price, the 180mm f3.4 I regret selling.For Canon, I have the 24-105 ii, the 24-70 2.8 ii, 70-200 f2.8 ii, 200mm f1.8 ii, 1.4X iii, 2X ii, and the 300mmf2.0 and 600mm f4.0 pair of Nikkors with adapters. The 200 mm Canon is amazingly sharp and nice to use, just heavy as hell. Nearly 4 kg, it must be solid metal and glass inside and it has almost useless tripod foot so I bought one from really right stuff that you can use as a palm holder. The two Nikkors are very heavy especially the 600. The 300 I can just barely use on a monopod or propped up on a stump. It has an interchangeable PL mount for Motion Pictures and I have loaned it out for that. It produces beautiful dramatic silhouettes, it was used in the final long shot at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last crusade. I have an amazing photograph of a bighorn sheep in Northern British Columbia I got with it it was on a magazine cover.I find I've been doing a lot of snap shitting with my Canon 6D Mark II, as I tend to use the zooms and it makes me lazy and not really want to find a great vantage point rather than just framing the subject with the zoom.For Hasselblad, I have a 500 C/M, a 903 SWC, 50mm f4 FLE, 60mmf3.5, 80mm f2.8 chrome Tstar, 100mm 3.5, 120mm f4 Macro, 250mm f5.6 chrome, 250mm f5.6 SA, and a 1000mm f5.6 Zeiss with its Rollei mount I keep thinking I wanted gfx but I'm still disappointed with Contax and Hasselblad shitting the bed on their first attempts at the digital Market. Both of them needed you to buy their new lens mounts for old lens designs. Absolute bullshit. 21MM 2.8 zeiss in Canon mount is my only DSLR lens fixed focal length I ownAs much as I like fuji, I find they're ergonomics on there cameras a bit puzzling.
>>4493212One of my favorite lenses to use is my 250 mm Sonnar from my Hasselblad. Great at portraits and wildlife, have an amazing photograph of a pileated woodpecker from about 10 ft away. Abysmally long close Focus though. The 250mm SA is a nice lens when you need resolution but otherwise just doesn't work as nicely. The 100mm is very sharp compared to the 80 mm and a slightly longer focal length flattens perspective nicely
>>4493635One of my earliest 50mm Hasselblad photos. If it looks familiar it might be because Chris Carter used this building as a set piece for one of the early X-Files episodes. You saw my work at a gallery and got my information on where it photographed all the industrial buildings including the one with the pivotal Mothership scene at the Britannia Beach mine
