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
