I find it hilarious how some comments are inquiring about your methods, when this is your personal video, and there is nothing stopping them from doing their own review comparison. Anyways, thank you so much for taking the time to do this, i found it extremely helpful!

@JasonRowPhotography

Ай бұрын

Thanks for your kind words. Tbh I am not really bothered about these people. They often have very little to show for their “expertise” :)

With DxO processing I find X-mount Fujis are a good option for a lightweight landscape kit, especially with their primes, that can hold up against FF in most printing and viewing standards. Medium format, however, is on another level-for a price.

@odeurneutre

4 ай бұрын

Another vote for DxO noise reduction (either by using Photolab or Pure RAW) from me - DeepPrime and DeepPrime XD are extraordinary in their abilities. If only they could assist with improving dynamic range at higher ISO values too! Nice video Jason, thank you.

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

I bought the GFX secondhand for less than the price of a new X-H2. But the lenses are very expensive, even used. Definitely want to invest in some fast primes for my X-H2; especially for video work.

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

Will have to take a look at DxO. 👍

@TarrelScot

24 күн бұрын

Yes, I'd recommend DXO. But I've found the best quality comes from using X-Raw Studio to generate a Tiff. I did a four-way comparison between that, DXO, Lightroom image-enhance and just straight Lightroom processing. The quality came out in that same order. (That was with the X-T5).

@jessejayphotography

24 күн бұрын

@@TarrelScot Interesting, good to know. Does X-RAW studio's limited controls still get you to where you want to be most of the time with a basic edit: exposure, contrast, color balance?

Great comparison Jason! Always good to see these being made. I did a similar one with the Nikon D850 24-70 2.8 and the XH2 16-55 2.8 and was really surprised at how the Fuji performed with the smaller sensor. I’m now retired at almost 70 and sold all my Nikon stuff and now all Fuji. I did wonder about MF but as its embarrassing enough being over taken by lassies pushing prams uphill the MF will probably be a bit too heavy and defeats the purpose of going a wee bit lighter. Definitely fancy the MF though😂

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Yes the Fuji X series cameras are excellent, lightweight and great image quality. I probably would not have bought the MF if it hadn’t been such a god price used. No regrets in buying, image quality is sublime but it is heavy

That castle photo on your monitor is 👌👌👌👏👏👏👍👍👍🙌🙌🙌🤟🤟

@JasonRowPhotography

2 ай бұрын

Thanks, it’s actually Durham Cathedral up here in NE England taken from drone

Thanks for your exposé. I am a pro photographer with over 40 years of experience. I am all in Fujifilm, with 3 x GFX bodies, that is 2 x GFX50S and the grips which I love, a GFX50Sll, which I appreciate for the IBIS but less for the ergonomics, a couple of X-H2's, XT4's, XT3's and a X-T20. Although the output on all of them are outstanding and overkill for most applications, I find the output of the GFX sensor more pleasing than that of the X-H2 and cleaner at their native iso's. I may be getting a GFX100 series, but still not sure as the output of the GFX50 sensor is so spectacular, I may not need to do so unless I need faster continuous AF. But for all intent and purpose, even 26mp is overkill.

@JasonRowPhotography

23 күн бұрын

I agree, the output of the GFX 50s has a lovely, perhaps film like feel to it. The only camera that I have owned that was similar was the Nikon D3. I suspect it's the relatively low pixel density that gives such a nice feel to the image

For me this shows up the weakness of the 40MP sensor in tonality compared to the medium-format, especially in the fall-off of the highlights. I know you've done some heavy editing, but there's a stark difference between the two in the way the highlights in the sky are rendered, even at the lower ISOs. I sold my GFX50R and replaced it with an X-T5 when it came out. The X-T5 is leaps and bounds ahead in terms of portability, ergonomics and speed, but I'm missing that tonality and "depth" from the MF sensor; so much so that I've ordered a (relatively) cheap 50S to use when I know that tonality and fine detail are going to be especially important. I shoot quite a lot of astro, which the 50R particularly struggled with (very noisy viewfinder in low light) and I do get much better results with the X-T5. So, for me, although it's an extravagance, I'll be running two systems.

@JasonRowPhotography

23 күн бұрын

Yes, I agree, the tonality and the overall feel of the image is significantly better in the GFX. I will also continue to run two systems, one for practicality and one of ultimate image quality.

I’d rather use DxO instead of Lightroom for that comparison, zero doubts for me (at least 😊)

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

Makes no difference, the base editor is the same so the effect is the same:

Why didn’t you use lens correction?

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

Because that has no effect on image quality and is irrelevant to this comparison

Why didn’t you start with corrections on the X-H2 files and then applied them to the GFX files?

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

Because the GFX obviously could be pushed further. Any corrections on the X-H2 would easily work on the GFX

Cant reallycompare with the same setting. DOF and FOV has to be the same. Which is it have a difference of x2? Like 100mm f4 gfx and 50mm f2 fujix in aperture mode

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

FOV and DOF are irrelevant to this test which is simply about how well they can be pushed in post production.

@Tbonyandsteak

4 ай бұрын

@@JasonRowPhotography exposure are everything so nope.

5 shot HDR ???? Why ?

@JasonRowPhotography

3 ай бұрын

Because I can !!!!

A comparison between two cameras with different sensor sizes at the same aperture and ISO values doesn’t make much sense. You need to use equivalent values i.e. dividing f-stops at the apsc camera by the crop factor and the ISO by the square of the crop factor. That‘s what you would do to get the same images (dof, signal to noise) if you are using the two systems in the field.

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

The video is about pushing them in post production not a pixel peeping comparison. It’s much more of a real world test for photographers

@dr.rationalist9669

4 ай бұрын

It doesn’t have to do anything with pixel peeping. The factor of the sensor diagonals between these two systems is roughly 1.95. So if you choose to take your image with the GFX with 60mm at f2.8 and a ISO of 12800 in the real world you will get pretty much the same result on the X-H2 at 33mm f1.4 and ISO3200. As far as I can see that’s also the outcome of your test. Differences in dynamic range should only be visible close to base ISO of the GFX since then no equivalent ISO values on the X-H2 exist. I think the medium format is only justified with higher pixel counts and of course only if you think you need them.

Wow, good images but sadly overcooked

@JasonRowPhotography

4 ай бұрын

That was literally the point of the video 🙄

The same settings do not equal the same exposure. You could have gotten closer to your goal if you had alternated exposures between the two cameras. Frankly this is not a comparison at all.

@JasonRowPhotography

9 күн бұрын

Frankly, I think the comparison is very valid, the same settings do equal the same exposure, the histograms show that clearly. But thanks for your input