Aswald

The article just say that the sensor is not the same but doesn't say it wasn't made by Sony. Both GFX and X1D's sensor size is 43.8 x 32.9mm.

No worries Begi. It was for discussion purposes. I was supporting the notion that possibly the bokeh of the GFX will be better than the X-T2 (all things equivalent) due to it's larger sensor. Since we don't have any photos from the GFX, mine is just a theory. I was looking at it from data I already have. I shared more details because you asked. No need to start another thread.

Question is, do you see a difference between the two?

Not trying to prove anyone wrong and won't challenge your 40 years of "trying it" but since you asked. Taken seconds apart, sooc, same lens, same settings, wide open and at min focus distance. Which one has smoother bokeh?

Some pic would be very helpful.

This, .... 100T, 56, will allow you some working distance. 10-24 if you have an opportunity for some landscapes/cityscape. Word of caution, don't leave your gear unattended. If you drive, don't leave your gear in the boot. Especially after you've taken things out in high visibility areas.

I would say, in film, low iso and high iso film has different quality bokeh and different DOF. In digital I would say, large and smaller sensor, lower and higher mpix on the same size sensor, gives different DOF bokeh. Try it.

Pro2 and T2 has the same bokeh quality. If you can, try comparing the bokeh of T1 and T2 or Pro1 and Pro2. Different DOF.

I can concur with this.

I agree.

Thanks! Kuh-TINE definitely carries a lot of weight on the matter. 4/3rd is unusual in the sense that viewing it on small and large print gives a totally different experience. Most interesting grain and texture on print. At least for the OMD-E M1.

Agree with both Milandro and Tom H. Also from experience.

Seems like you've perfected your technique. I can't really tell which is which but the photos on your website looks remarkable. Very nice work. The detail and texture is amazing. Hopefully, the day will come when we can have a singular camera able to give the resolution which we need to do what you can even without! Keep us updated with the autopano. Looks like an interesting software. It'll be good if it has warp function like Adobe. The perspective correction looks pretty good.

I see. I bet the results are good as it does sound like a lot of work. What I can say is that Canon is definitely on track with it's shutter. The 5D4 is significantly more refined than the 5D3. The whole shutter / mirror box is a completely new design. It was very different to shoot with. I've never felt a smoother shutter. In fact, I didn't feel a thing.

Haha....I daren't even try. I read your analysis and is somewhat encouraged that in order to hit FEM of 500 for the 4x5, we'd need a 166 mpix sensor.....I take away that we have more advancements coming our way. Of course, it'll print 200 x 250cm! Seriously, Canon is working on a 120mpix camera. Only question is whether it's FF or MF.

Interesting links. Good read. Thank you. At least I don't feel so bad about my "low res" 35mm films now....

I was just looking at the Deardoff.

Yup. Keeps my old Canon A1s in proper working order.....I have to say this though, it's pretty difficult to realize the full "resolution" of any 35mm film. Most of the time it looks like 3mpix. Must be my technique.

Heard plenty "praises" about the D500. Also touted to be the best DX format to date. I haven't tried it myself. Any feedback?

The tables have definitely turned in favor of digital. Now we get to control the entire process from shooting right down to printing, unless of course if you do that on film too. Needless to say, shooting digital is not only fast, it is more convenient too. However, there's always been a debate on how much pixel is enough. 3mpix was a lot until 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 36, 42 and now 50 mpix came along. When is it too much translating into buying hype or marketing stint. I also saw a glimpse of Canon working on a 120mpix camera recently. Having shot 24mpix for a while now, I smirked at Canon's newest 5D4 50.4mpix.....that is until I shot with it. I can't fully explain except that the new 50.4mpix is a great welcome indeed! My PC didn't freeze up processing the files and quite amazingly, it didn't slow down too. So, it started me wondering, have we actually reached the digital sweet spot in megapixel yet? I will probably never buy the newly launched Fujifilm GFX 50s but admittedly, I'm very thrilled about it. Here's an old like to juggle more "old muscle memory". https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

You've managed some heart stopping moments. The setback would have been the xf55-200 lens. As much as I love the lens, it isn't an indoor lens. I would've have used the xf50-140 wide open. It's sharp at that distance. F2.8 would've allowed a higher stutter speed and a lower iso. Both of which would've given a better color rendition. X-T2 + Battery grip + xf50-140 is no where near Nikon equivalents. A bit of fill in flash would do well to bring colors to life with either lenses. The indoor lighting doesn't look very spectacular.

Why do I feel happy reading this? "A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film". http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

Duck tape....learn something new everyday. Thanks! http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html

Best thing to do is keep requesting from Fujifilm and ask them to cut some slack. That's what I do when I see them.

This site mentions that the AF points on the prototype had a 7 x 6 grid. Does not sound like a lot. Hope this helps. http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/feature-first-looks-fujifilm-s-newest-crown-jewel-gfx-50s