Has anyone here pre-ordered the GFX

[algrove]

Also got my notice of GFX and 32-64 shipping today so should have it next week sometime.

[flysurfer]

My main interest is finding out how the sensor performs IQ-wise, particularly in the light of Fujifilm's microlens and copper wiring mods. I expect a buch of people will be disappointed by several weak performance points that can all be traced back to rather slow sensor readout. This is no X-T2 with a large sensor, even though the processor is the same. OTOH, the sensor's ISOless performance appears to be impeccable (at least according to my preliminary testing based on ISO 1600 vs. a 4 stop push of ISO 100 to 1600 in Lightroom 6.9 beta). I expect very good dynamic range, and I suspect (also based on preliminary testing) that unlike other Sony-made sensors, this one will allow more overexposure than usual.

 

Here are two samples with the same exposure (f/13, 1/50s), one was amplified with the camera's ISO dial to ISO 1600, the other one was shot at ISO100 and amplified in Lightroom CC:

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by flysurfer

[zinertia2]

On 1 Photo Raw appears to open the RAF files. working through basics, tried Velvia sim on some purple flowers- over saturated (looking at what I may have done wrong)

lots of fun!

[algrove]

Anyone here used Iridient to process GFX RAW's?

[krötenblender]

Anyone here used Iridient to process GFX RAW's?

 

Yes, I tried Iridient Developer, and it was able to load the RAWs (I tried uncompressed only). But I'm not so used to the interface and workflow, so I didn't try very hard. I was just searching for a way to convert the RAWs to something, that Lightroom could read (DNG or tiff), but it wasn't very useful to me. Anyway. Iridient works, so if you are used to the interface, you should be able to work with it.

[algrove]

Decided GFX not my cup of tea. It seems something looks cooked into the RAWs and that is not what I want. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by algrove

[krötenblender]

Decided GFX not my cup of tea. It seems something looks cooked into the RAWs and that is not what I want. 

 

If you are already happy, with what what you have, and the GFX doesn't add anything important, let it go... I currently enjoy the camera very much and since Lightroom support, the RAW processing is not such PITA anymore. The RAWs give very much room for processing (shadow recovery and clipping are very well handled, I think). 

 

What do you mean with the RAWs look like having cooked something into them? You think, there is too much processing in camera before writing the RAWs?

[algrove]

Perhaps. The files do not behave like the wonderful 645Z files of a year ago. I did like that one could choose to have the files saved as DNG's while using the 645Z.  I might revisit the GFX if needed in the future. 

[krötenblender]

Perhaps. The files do not behave like the wonderful 645Z files of a year ago. I did like that one could choose to have the files saved as DNG's while using the 645Z.  I might revisit the GFX if needed in the future. 

 

Having DNG as a native format out of camera is a nice thing. I liked that with my Leicas. Since (even compressed) support for the GFX RAF files in Lightroom, it's not a problem anymore. I only wish, Capture One would also support it.

 

Otherwise I think, the files can be pretty much manipulated to have the look, you want. Do you still have the Pentax? I never owned it, but checked it out at Photokina. For me, it was simply too heavy and big.

[algrove]

Agree that the 645Z was big and ugly although in the hand it felt just fine. The new lenses like the 55, 28-45 and 90 were stellar. Older Pentax pre-CMOS lenses were issues from time to time. I found a great 150/2.8 that I loved. Sold the 645Z system once my Phase dealer started making me offers that were extremely good, like offering a 645Z trade-in of USD10K over the new purchase price of a 645Z plus other very good sweeteners. What MF I use now has no weather sealing, but decided will use my XT2 if weather becomes impossible where my OP/Tech rain sleeves will not suffice. Right now both camera systems use C1 and I am pleased about that.

[krötenblender]

Agree that the 645Z was big and ugly although in the hand it felt just fine. The new lenses like the 55, 28-45 and 90 were stellar. Older Pentax pre-CMOS lenses were issues from time to time. I found a great 150/2.8 that I loved. Sold the 645Z system once my Phase dealer started making me offers that were extremely good, like offering a 645Z trade-in of USD10K over the new purchase price of a 645Z plus other very good sweeteners. What MF I use now has no weather sealing, but decided will use my XT2 if weather becomes impossible where my OP/Tech rain sleeves will not suffice. Right now both camera systems use C1 and I am pleased about that.

 

Yeah, well, the GFX is no beauty either... If one needs beautiful cameras, instead of a work-horse, then digital MF might be the wrong place to search. I don't know any beautifull digital MF camera, some of the old film-MFs were really pretty.

[milandro]

I don’t know about you but from where I am standing, this looks like a beautiful camera, but it must be me...

 

[krötenblender]

I don’t know about you but from where I am standing, this looks like a beautiful camera, but it must be me...

 

 

Okay, I forgot about the Hasselblad, it's IMHO the only exception. I have to say, when I played around a little bit wth the Hasselblad, I was very tempted to take it instead of the GFX. But in the end, I had the feeling, the GFX would give me many more possibilities and would be more versatile. The Hasselblad reminded me on my beloved Fujifilm GF670, my all time favorite MF camera.