Jump to content

GFX 100s erratic distance indicator


Borowiec
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've had the 100S for a couple of weeks now but am having a lot of trouble using the depth of field scale, what the manual calls the Distance Indicator. Specifically, when I focus manually on a point and the white line under the distance scale at the bottom of the viewfinder shows a particular distance, if I then use auto-focus on that same point, about half the time the white line moves to a different number, often one quite far away, e.g. from 15ft to infinity. Also, often when I use auto-focus the white line is clearly in the wrong position: I will focus on something at 15ft and it will move to the 30ft mark. The only way to get it to show an accurate distance number is to auto-focus on a relatively near point, say 7ft, then gradually focus on further points, and eventually it will show an accurate distance. 

I have not only observed this in the field, with disastrous consequences for the depth of field in my photos, but have confirmed it with careful tests using a measuring tape. In short, the distance indicated by the white line is very inaccurate about half the time, and it is very inconsistent. I can focus on the same point multiple times and it will show wildly different distances.

Note that when I confirm the lens's focus by zooming in, the auto=focus point is always correct: the focus is working properly, it's the distance display that is not. This phenomenon is not a factor of the lens, as it happens with both the 30mm and the 45mm.

I have been through the manual and the menus countless times trying to see if I have something set incorrectly, to no avail. I did find a post from several years ago elsewhere on this forum about a similar thing happening with one of the X cameras, where someone wrote that Fuji was "working on it," but nothing else.

Am I doing something wrong or is this just a defect in the camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Distance Indicator in Fujifilm cameras is notoriously unreliable. It can behave quite erratic and is often off by 1-2m or so. With an APS-C X-mount camera at f5.6 it is less of an issue, but for a GFX100 it becomes useless. It was one of the (many) points why we decided to stay with our H6D setup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Borowiec said:

Thank you Herco, you have confirmed what I suspected. Now I have to decide if I want to keep the camera...

Perhaps you can make changes to your workflow when focusing? The 100S normally has good AF that doesn't require the Distance Indicator, unless you want to work with the hyper focal points (e.g. for landscape).

For portraits (as we do in our Studio) the AF in combination with eye-AF works reasonably well. However, like most Fujifilm cameras, there's a tendency towards front-focusing whereby the focus is on eye lashes instead of the pupil. That's usually only an issue with longer lenses at large apertures like the 110 at f2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm experimenting with various ways of controlling depth of field, because I photograph landscapes. I know the 100S focus is accurate, I just need to find a method to ensure that I have placed the depth of field where it needs to be. I'm trying different positions of the distance indicator relative to the infinity mark.

I've also tried using a depth of field phone app and a rangefinder to accurately measure distance (not a rangefinder camera, an actual rangefinder). This does work but it's very cumbersome.

And of course there's always focus stacking, which works brilliantly, but is also very cumbersome.

It's funny because when I used 6x9cm film for forty years, f11 on a 90mm lens gave me all the depth of field I needed, i.e. from 5 meters to infinity, but with a 45mm on the GFX 100S it's not possible to have that same depth at f11. I suppose the detail of the sensor requires a different definition of what is an acceptable circle of confusion. I may end up using f16, even though the lens isn't as sharp, due to diffraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's strange... I've quickly looked-up some tables and according to me the CoC of a 6x9 is 0.07 and for the GFX100 it should be 0.038 (same cropped MF sensor size as the Pentax 645Z). Using a 90mm at f11 on a 6x9 set at approx. 11m hyperfocal should result in a DoF from 5.3m to infinity. For the GFX using a 45mm at f11 set at approx.  5m hyperfocal results in a DoF of 3.2m to infinity. I've never heard of a different definition for an acceptable CoC before...

I can't understand why Fuji after all these years is still not able or willing to implement an accurate DoF calculator in their cameras. My H6D is accurate to the cm. Same for my wife's SL2... For typical landscape use (one of the GFX sweet spots) it's a must-have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difference is more a matter of perception, of what looks acceptable. That's why the 100S has two different settings for the depth of field scale. On 6x9 film I rarely made prints larger than 16"x20" and distant backgrounds looked sharp. With the 100S I can see that the background is not sharp when I look at a file 100% on screen, but it looks perfectly fine in a 17"x22" print. My concern is that I want the files to hold up for larger print sizes, which was never a concern with 6x9 film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hope you managed to decide to return the 100S within the trial period because I decided to stick it out & work through the problems - & regret it.

Like you I, increasingly, use smaller apertures & so ( with increased diffraction ) defeat the aim of high quality lenses & sensors. I use hyperfocal distance & TBH - it has turned into a lottery & a lot of shoot & hope.

I've even bought a Bosch laser measurer

Photography has lost its enjoyment through loss of confidence in the equipment & having to spend far too much time on a PC focus stacking. 

So much so - that I am offloading all my equipment - GFX camera & 3 lenses - & heading to APSC for a peaceful life.

I have Ektachrome 64 & Kodachrome 25 slides in storage - taken with a Pentax ME 35mm & a 75 - 150 lens ( in the 80's ) - that are streets ahead in terms of resolution, detail & dynamic range, I can print them in all manner of sizes & the significance of CoC was minimal.

I think digital still has a long way to go & find technical aspects of GFX camera management have eroded the holistic gains of standing gazing at nature & recording what we see !

CoC -  has been magnified beyond functional use & has become an excuse & a veneer to conceal the lack of rendition & image detail in digital images

Who 'on earth' shoots images whilst thinking about the visual acuity of another person that might see it, their distance from it whilst viewing it & the size of the print

Best of luck

Colby

 

You shouldn't be having to hope that your images hold up to large printing - It should be a 'Taken' !!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2022 at 4:08 PM, CNB said:

Hope you managed to decide to return the 100S within the trial period because I decided to stick it out & work through the problems - & regret it.

Like you I, increasingly, use smaller apertures & so ( with increased diffraction ) defeat the aim of high quality lenses & sensors. I use hyperfocal distance & TBH - it has turned into a lottery & a lot of shoot & hope.

I've even bought a Bosch laser measurer

Photography has lost its enjoyment through loss of confidence in the equipment & having to spend far too much time on a PC focus stacking. 

So much so - that I am offloading all my equipment - GFX camera & 3 lenses - & heading to APSC for a peaceful life.

I have Ektachrome 64 & Kodachrome 25 slides in storage - taken with a Pentax ME 35mm & a 75 - 150 lens ( in the 80's ) - that are streets ahead in terms of resolution, detail & dynamic range, I can print them in all manner of sizes & the significance of CoC was minimal.

I think digital still has a long way to go & find technical aspects of GFX camera management have eroded the holistic gains of standing gazing at nature & recording what we see !

CoC -  has been magnified beyond functional use & has become an excuse & a veneer to conceal the lack of rendition & image detail in digital images

Who 'on earth' shoots images whilst thinking about the visual acuity of another person that might see it, their distance from it whilst viewing it & the size of the print

Best of luck

Colby

 

You shouldn't be having to hope that your images hold up to large printing - It should be a 'Taken' !!

 

I can recommend the Lumix S1R or the Leica SL2 for this purpose. Both cameras have an excellent in-camera focus stacking capability with almost no work in post needed. Both cameras also have an excellent hi-res mode that combines 8 images into a 184MP raw file in-camera. So there's no additional work in post needed to combine the shots (like with Sony or the GFX100). In my experience it works flawless for landscape and architecture. Even with small movement in the image (like clouds or a passing plane). Finally, both cameras also have an excellent built-in hyperfocal indication and DoF-scale. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I'm surprised as well - I have that lens currently on the X-H2S and there is no obvious play.
    • Hi GO I am comparing it to all my FujiFilm bodies and the other marque in my (as my beloved would put it) 'too many cameras' fleet. Ken stated that the IQ was 'muddy' compared to the X-T4 and having tested it alongside my X-T4 and X-S10 (and for fairness sake my X-H1 and X-T3) I can find absolutely no difference in IQ between the newest bodies (X-T4/X-S10) which are marginally better than the older ones (X-T3/X-H1/X-Pro2) if you really start down the IQ pixel-peeping route. Its not a route I go down. I have been more than happy with the IQ of the X-T4 and X-S10 but the subject aquisition and focus success rate of the X-H2S takes it to a different level above both of those super cameras and that is/was the rationale for buying it. As well as the phenominal speed and buffering and stacked sensor. That's on the FujiFilm 'compared to what' side. If I then compare the X-H2S with my Sony A7 iv (my only full frame camera) I would say that the Sony is marginally better on focus speed, tracking and (pixel peeping) detail but, as I have more FujiFilm lenses and prefer the tactile feel of the Fuji's over the more clinical Sony, I am more than satisfied with the X-H2S. Each to their own! His point that the IQ was no better or worse than previous much less expensive models was an irrelevance to me as I wasn't after a quantum leap in IQ (I am more than satisfied), I just wanted a much better focus and aquisition rate which I now have with the cracking X-H2S. I like Ken and his thoughts on FujiFilm lenses just about mirror mine though I confess to not owning/using as many as him. But of those that I do own, they feature in his 'top-5'. I even prefer my 16-80mm over the bag of primes 16-55mm! Whilst I do find his reviews very refreshing and interesting/different, I find Maarten Heilbronn, Andy Mumford and the Hybrid Shooter offer a more balanced viewpoint coupled with actual photo examples which I,  as a simple retired soldier, can relate to and form an opinion/judgement on. Unless I have missed them, I cannot recall ever seeing any actual examples taken by Ken to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the contentious and (sometimes) contemptious and dismissive views he holds. Again whilst I respect his views, I reserve the right to disagree with them and in the case of the FujiFilm X-H2S, I clearly do! I hope that answers your point on the 'compared to what'. Kind regards Pat    
    • Hi Patr, I'm sure its a cracking camera but as Ken would say "Compared to what?' That what he claimed, the image was no better or worse than previous much less expensive models.          Regards, GO  
    • I found this forum in a link from another Fuji forum so I'm glad to be here.  Regarding Ken, he's a strong, unique personality and part of his identity is to rattle the pots and pans. He's a quirky, intelligent person who has opinions, like we all do. His presentation can be extremely off putting, but he's worth listening to when deciding on a new Fuji.  I agree with others here who say it's best to rent a new camera if possible, and compare to one's own knowledge base and shooting preferences. 
×
×
  • Create New...