# Something i wanted to point out.



## donny1963 (Jun 20, 2020)

Ok some time ago i have mention that best quality pictures come from medium Format Camera's where many people especially on here (the ones who think they know it all)
Argued A Full Frame Camera is just as good in producing Image quality.

Where Full frame can produce image quality most of them do,  but they do not
match up to the medium format spectrum camera's such as the Hasselblad H6.
Now they are many camera manufactures out there but only 1 so far make a true
Medium Format Camera, what i mean by True Medium Format, is that the sensor size being the same size as the medium format film camera's.

just like in 35 mm vs crop sensor, they are many medium format camera's out there that
do not have the full medium format sensor, also i might add The hasselblad H6 is the only full frame medium format camera that also produces true 16 bit color output.
the rest of the medium format camera's are only 8 bit like the full frame camera's such as the Nikon D850, that camera is a true 35mm Full frame, no crop same size as the 35 mm film.

For example the Sensor size for a Hasselblad Medium format camera is  "53.4 x 40.0mm"
the other manufactures like the Fujifilm GFX 100 has a sensor size of "43.8 x 32.9mm"
so in theory the GFX 100 is a crop sensor camera in regards to medium format.
just like a Nikon D7100 (Sensor Size " 23.5 x 15.6 mm") would be a crop sensor
 and a Nikon D850 (Sensor Size "35.9 x 23.9 mm") would be a full frame
So this is the reason why you can't compare other Medium Format camera's other then the Hasselblad H6 to Full frame because the "Crop Sensor Medium Format"  is not a fair comparison to full frame 35 mm sensor camera's Because the Crop Sensor Medium Format
doesn't put out the same quality and color range as the Hasselblad H6 does.

it would be like comparing  your Nikon D7100 Crop sensor to a Nikon D850 Full frame.
The D7100 would never be able to match it's quality.

The best camera in quality that produces the very best true to life images is the Hasselblad H6
there is no camera that can match it anywhere as of today.

you see there is a reason why the Fujifilm GFX 100 Medium Format is only $10,000.00 In price
Vs the Hasselblad H6 at $47,000.00 when you use both camera's you know where the extra $37,000.00 went to..

also if some one tries to tell you a full frame camera can produce just as good of an image as the Hasselblad H6 Medium Format, and shows you a picture from the Full frame Camera then one of the Hasselblad H6 then says " See both pictures are the same in quality the Medium Format doesn't look much better.

This is because these idiot will show you 2 images 1 from each camera and they are in both JPEG format. This is really stupid because The Haasselblad H6 produces 16 Bit color which makes a huge diffrence vs the Full frame only producing 8 bit color .

you see  JPEG picture file can only be in 8 bit color, JPEG can not show you a 16 bit color picture because it's only 8 bit.

so this is why both pictures don't look any better then the other. you would have to view the Hasselblad Picture in a TIF file format not JPEG.
TIF file image is 16 bith color.

that would be a fair comparison.
now viewing 16 bit color pictures is not common on the web because most web browser only supports 8 bit color file formats, JPEG being the standard when you look at a picture on your web browsers, it's most likely a JPEG file format.

How ever it is still possible to view 16 bit color pictures on the web through software or plugins on your web browser.

for example Virtual Museums that you can visit online that display precious items use 16 bit color Medium Format pictures for this because True Medium Format pictures are the closest to looking at something that would be in true life,

in other words the Medium Format pictures that produce true 16 bit color are the most accurate to what you would see in real life, because full frame and any other 8 bit picture could not display the color spectrum and quality is just not there.

so when you go online at a Virtual museum, you download their software and connect through that because it's software sends the images for you to view in true 16 bit.

All these Virtual museums who hire photographers to take these pictures only hire the ones who are using the Hasselblad H6 True Medium Format with 16 bit color, they WILL NOT consider any full frame camera no matter what.

That is their #1 requirement.
I know this first hand, so there you go one more piece of evidence to why the hasselbald H6 is the best camera today producing the best quality images anywhere.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jun 20, 2020)

Some of your assumptions on bit depth are not correct. Raw DSLR files are not limited to 8 bit and as of yet there are no native 16 bit monitors. Any bit depth integrity is limited buy the monitor one is viewing the file on and it better be calibrated using 3D LUT’s to get within a barge pole of 16 bit depth.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 20, 2020)

Forget the bit depth issue. Format will win the day hands down (provided your running like type technologies).
Ergo 3 nm pixles in a aps-c vs. 9nm fat pixles in an older 36x36 phase one.

They have to be the same evolution of tech.   Otherwise its like trying to compare a modern suped up turbo Scion Xb to a 72 Mach 1 with a 429 SCJ


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 20, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> Some of your assumptions on bit depth are not correct. Raw DSLR files are not limited to 8 bit and as of yet there are no native 16 bit monitors. Any bit depth integrity is limited buy the monitor one is viewing the file on and it better be calibrated using 3D LUT’s to get within a barge pole of 16 bit depth.



how ever the monitors that do exist can show the difference between a 8 bit  and 16 bit photo.

n terms of color, an *8*-*bit* image *can* hold 16,000,000 colors, whereas a *16*-*bit* image *can* hold 28,000,000,000

*16-bit color*
With 16-bit color, also called High color, computers and monitors can display as many as 65,536 colors, which is adequate for most uses. However, graphic intensive video games and higher resolution video can benefit from and take advantage of the higher color depths.

*24-bit color*
Using 24-bit color, also called True color, computers and monitors can display as many as 16,777,215 different color combinations.

*32-bit color*
Like 24-bit color, 32-bit color supports 16,777,215 colors but has an alpha channel it can create more convincing gradients, shadows, and transparencies. With the alpha channel 32-bit color supports 4,294,967,296 color combinations.

to say here are no native 16 bit monitors, that is bull.
Also if no monitor could take advantage of the 16 bit color pictures from H6 they would not bother to produce something that can produce 16 bit color, and
DLSR's are all 8-bit and are limited to it,
they sure as hell can't do 16 bit that is for sure, which is double the colors.
you show me the the specs of a DSLR camera sold today that shows it is 16 bith, they will all say 8-bit
The H6 has way larger gamut of tonal range and color.
you can see it in post, it's way more colors, which also 
improves SNR as well.

and i am correct.
you can try and put out any argument you want my OP is 100% correct no other camera can match the quality of the H6 NONE there is no camera that can match it..


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2020)

Article from Canon on bit depth of cameras
8 or 16 bit - Canon Professional Network


Article that gives some insight into bit colour depth in monitors and why what is says on the box isn't quite true in terms of what the monitor shows
Why You Need to Know What Color Bit Depth Your Display Supports


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jun 22, 2020)

Jeez Donny, that's a pretty compelling rant you had going there!!! LoL
I have NEVER seen anybody here say that ANY FF is as good as an H6?!
But I have personally said that it would NOT be worth shooting with an H6 on most occasions when a high mp FF will do an adequate job for most photography. I spent years shooting with a 4x5 and long ago concluded that I would NOT waste my time shooting with MF again when if I truly wanted real Definition I would simply shoot on 4x5 film. Not even sure how many bit 4x5 film is, do you? And 4x5 cameras are CHEAP!!!
I feel in love with shooting portraits when in a museum I once saw one of Hendrick Kersten's 50"x60" portraits shot on 8x10 film. I wonder how that H6 digi image looks at 50x60 compared to the 8x10 neg at 50x60? 
If you need an H6, nothing wrong with that, go for it but no one here has said that FF is better, only that there are different tools for different work and they are more than adequate. It's pretty hard to beat a FF with the myriad of lenses available and how fast they can perform.
If that H6 shot at 14 fps I'd be tempted and 14 bit is pretty darned close!
BTW, real MF is 2.25 x 2.25, not that wimpy 53 x40!!!
SS


----------



## Derrel (Jun 22, 2020)

Welcome back, Donny.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 22, 2020)

I see that there are a number of posts here and I am sure that they make sense 
However it’s all gone right over my head, I have looked at the Pentax 645 z and weighed up the +/-
And decided that 
1 all the time photography is a hobby I can’t justify the cost of MF
2 I have invested a lot of time, effort and money in getting my current system just where I want it
3 all the time I can get what I want out of my kit, even if it means taking 20 pics to male a 2mtr panorama 
Then why change. 
4  ok there is better image quality to be had  but I can’t use it without serious upgrade of related kit as well as the camera. Printer, lap top etc. 
5 and finally I have to ask, even if money was no object.... do I need and or would I use the extra image quality 
And for me is no I don’t need nor would I use it.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 22, 2020)

You do understand that most of your statements are utterly meaningless, don't you?  "Image quality"; is a totally subjective phrase.  Image quality is a generalized term which means widely different things to different people.  It could be anything from sharpness to pixel count, colour rendition, low-light performance, or simply the general appearance of the image.  One point you seem to have totally overlooked is the fact that many, if not the majority of factors relating to "image quality" are in fact more attributable to the lens than the sensor of the camera. 

You make frequent reference to crop and full-frame sensors.  Be mindful that these are just marketing terms, created primarily for the benefit of the consumer to compare a compare's sensor to that of a standard 35mm negative.  There have always been a multitude of negative sizes in all film formats, in particular medium format, so speaking of a "crop frame" medium format is, for all intents and purposes, pointless. 

I would like to seem some supporting evidence for your contention that virtual museums only employ photographers using the H6; for instance, I know for a fact (Because I know some of the photographers who have done the work) that a significant amount of the material photographed by/for the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC was NOT shot on a Hasselblad H6. 

I'm curious as to how many and which medium frame cameras you own.  You speak with great authority regarding the H6, so I assume you own at least one of those, and since you compare it with the GFX, I assume you either own, or have extensive experience with that as well?  I think many of us would be greatly interested in the MF gear that you own and/or have used.  What sort of work do you do which justifies what must surely be a $75-100,000 investment?


----------



## Mike Drone (Jun 22, 2020)

tirediron said:


> You do understand that most of your statements are utterly meaningless, don't you? "Image quality"; is a totally subjective phrase. Image quality is a generalized term which means widely different things to different people. It could be anything from sharpness to pixel count, colour rendition, low-light performance, or simply the general appearance of the image. One point you seem to have totally overlooked is the fact that many, if not the majority of factors relating to "image quality" are in fact more attributable to the lens than the sensor of the camera.



I agree with your statements, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I believe my 35mm makes the best images and image quality.  I am not fond of medium and large format cameras.  I read these post a few times but did not want to reply because of the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything".  I don't mean to be rude in any way but I also am not going to be told what is beautiful to me and others.  Image quality is opinionated.  If one wants to compare cameras that they feel are nice, then back the compare data with supporting data and evidence.

Good morning everyone!    i am getting some coffee...


----------



## weepete (Jun 23, 2020)

What about large format?....

LargeSense Unveils World's First Single Shot 8×10 Digital Camera


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 23, 2020)

No Katomi, it doesn't make lot of sense, and yes John, it mostly seems meaningless. I just glanced thru it rather than read it all due to past experience.

Donnie if you were in a country where English is not the primary language then it would be understandable that what you write is unclear and has a lot of errors in syntax, capitalization, etc. Otherwise it looks like you need to bring up your skills in writing and being much more clear about what you're trying to say.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jun 23, 2020)

Image quality comes down to more than how many bits you have.

Mpix, Dynamic rande, # of bits, pixel size, processor, sensor filters. Any one of those that are not up to the task can make your image quality suffer. Boiling a large amount of variables down to one is:

A. Wrong, and

B. Lazy.

Not saying that Hassy (iff all other factors are IDENTICAL) won't take a technically cleaner image however the extra $40k? Ya not that much better no matter who you ask.


----------



## Jeff G (Jun 23, 2020)

This is the beginners forum right?  Am I the only one who thinks this seems kind of intense for beginners to try to comprehend? Sure it's informative, but I would put it a little above the basics. I could be wrong but it gives me a headache just trying to follow along.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jun 23, 2020)

I have heard and read many conversations like this. Be it cameras, lenses, fine shotguns, artwork, wine, instruments or a host of other subjects.

Above a certain price and quality level, it is the nuances and personal preference that determine " the best".  It may make for interesting opinions but it like the old discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If there was one perfect camera we would not need so many types and models.


----------



## limr (Jun 23, 2020)

Jeff G said:


> This is the beginners forum right?  Am I the only one who thinks this seems kind of intense for beginners to try to comprehend? Sure it's informative, but I would put it a little above the basics. I could be wrong but it gives me a headache just trying to follow along.



You are correct. It was improperly posted in this forum. Moving to Discussions.

Too bad we don't have a "Dead horses to beat" forum...


----------



## terri (Jun 23, 2020)

Jeff G said:


> This is the beginners forum right?  Am I the only one who thinks this seems kind of intense for beginners to try to comprehend? Sure it's informative, but I would put it a little above the basics. I could be wrong but it gives me a headache just trying to follow along.


Given the nature of the responses, maybe it would fare better in the Just for Fun forum.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 23, 2020)

The H6 is popular with guys who shoot NFL football.  No, wait, it sucks for that. The H6 rules at bird in flight shots...oh, no, wait, it's lousy for that. The H6 is popular with insect macro shooters...oh, wait, that's not its forte.
The H6 is popular with long-distance hikers. No, wait, that's not right.

The H6 is great for slow-paced studio fashion and advertising shoots and it is also great for landscape photography, but there are quite a few other cameras with your much better at rapid fire shooting and which have a much better selection of lenses for a wider variety of shooting. No doubt it has good image quality, but if you don't have the right lens, and you cannot achieve the focus you need, then a big sensor is of very little use. Given how expensive  H6 is, for most people it would be more economical to buy a medium format film camera, or even a 4 by 5 in View Camera to make the photos they need.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 23, 2020)

On another forum over archery there was a long winded argument over the diff. between a Bear, PSE and Hoyt. Which one could push a carbon arrow faster with more energy and lowest amout of shaft flex as measured by a chronomiter and high speed (aghast NOT an H6 Hasselblad) camera. 
The conversation became extreemly heated with 6 members including a moderator vanned for week. 

I the asked the question..."does it make the deer any deader" than a wooden long bow?



There were no more posts after that.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 24, 2020)

At least shot with a camera crop sensor,ff,med format or large format the deer lives lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 29, 2020)

Having very large equipment does not make any man a great lover.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 29, 2020)

And that settles that!


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2020)

@The_Traveler It's not the size of the data..............It's how you use it.


----------



## limr (Jun 29, 2020)

vintagesnaps said:


> And that settles that!



Does it though?


----------



## terri (Jun 29, 2020)

The_Traveler said:


> Having very large equipment does not make any man a great lover.


By all means, share your empirical research with the class.


----------



## mrca (Jun 29, 2020)

Darrel, exactly what I did.  My entire body, 4 lens, 3 film back Mamiya RB67  kit costs  less than a grand.   It makes  a 60 mm x 70 mm negative, real mf full frame,  with tonal transitions like budda.  It has that mf look.   I primarily use it in studio or for landscapes on tripod, it's a beast.  But I don't use Portra or 1600 speed b&w plugins that kinda look right.  I get that gorgeous grain or real portra colors from this stuff called "film."  But if I had to shoot only it or my d850 with 100 mm zeiss glass, not even a close call.     I wonder how many folks here could tell the difference between a mf or ff  digital or film.     But I do and I continue to put up with $2.50 a shot, a week turnaround for development and emailed digitals.   Besides, it's actually fun shooting.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 29, 2020)

terri said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Having very large equipment does not make any man a great lover.
> ...



The terms of my parole limit disclosing my research only as pillow talk.


----------



## mrca (Jun 29, 2020)

Art should be to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature.  Hamlet. William Shakespeare.  Who didn't see it as a hammer... or a sickle.  If you have never watched the scene from Branaugh's Hamlet with Charleton Heston showing what acting should look like in that scene, it is perhaps his best acting ever.  .


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Overread said:


> Article from Canon on bit depth of cameras
> 8 or 16 bit - Canon Professional Network
> 
> 
> ...




First off using a camera that does 16 bit vs 8 bit is not just to be able to see it on a monitor, they are many reasons why a Real professional photographer would chose and do choose a good quality 16 bit camera rather then an 8 bit, 
Playboy for example, i worked for playboy for 7 years in the 80's and low 90's  we all used hasselbad Medium Format film camera's not Nikon or canon 35mm they was a reason for that. and most photographers who got anywhere in their carrier use the
hasselbad medium format, for vogue, rolling stones and so on, back in the day when i met up with annie leibovitz who did many work for Rolling Stones and  Vanity Fair she always used the Hasselbald medium format for a shoot that mattered every time i saw her that is what was in her hand for a camera.

i have done work for sports illustrated swimsuit, Maxim, Vogue, cosmopolitan and others.

Here is some important information about the Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors, Yes they take good sharp images, they have some great features, But I wouldn't consider them a "Professional" Camera not even the Medium Format ones, I would never Use them  for a shoot where a client paid me for this service.

First off Most Camera's like the Canon Or Nikon Crop Sensor cameras, even some of the full frame camera's do ok for taking pictures, But they have a flaw most of them, Especially the ones that have the optical low pass filters removed to increase sharpness, yes it does do that but with the problem of now causing moire & Banding. 

And this can happen where your taking a shot of something that has small tiny pattern lines like a swimsuit is common to have them. 
I would never use a Non-Professional Camera for a swimsuit photo shoot, and i did take the Fuji X-T3 to demonstrate this example on that shoot. I Shoot models from all over the world, i shoot for magazine, posters, even fashion shows, 
 Example i done some of  the sports illustrated swimsuit  shot for Maxim Magazine, and others. 

here an example picture  where this banding and moire is real bad, 
this was done with the Fuji T-T3 by the way.

imagine if i was to use the Fuji XT-3 For doing the 2020 sports illustrated swimsuit issue and this  picture in the example below was given to them, they would say to me "what is wrong with you"

By the way that is one of the models for the 2020 sports illustrated swimsuit taken just out side a pizza place on our lunch time. Now the fuji- X series cameras are good cameras for people wanting a camera and not pay tons of money, people to use it for birthday party or on vacation. But Not for Weddings, Or serious Hired Professional shoots, NO WAY!!! 

all the Fuji X Series camera's have the xtrans sensors, they work well except they are prone for causing Major moire & Banding.
especially the Xtrans Sensors ones, that sensor causes major major Banding & Moire galore as you can see in the example picture.

Even the GFX100 Medium Format Fuji Sensors have it as well, This is why i use the Hasselblad H6 Medium Format, i will NOT pay $10,000.00 for a "professional" Camera"
That will  produce Major Moire and banding, unacceptable..
This is why the Fuji GFX100 is only $10,000.00 and the Hasselblad H6 is $47,000.00 this is one of the reasons.
The sensors in the Hasselblad H6 Is way better and does the imaging properly where the lower priced "Non-Professional Cameras would not.

See Non professional photographers don't realize this or come across this because they don't do this professionally every day like i have.
I been doing this for over 30 years. when you shoot for the people that  i have,  you would notice this.

Any one to say that i'm wrong about what i said is just a photography enthusiast, and has not done this as a serious profession working for the high end publications like i have. 

I have done Fashion Week In NYC with all the top 5 models in the world for fashion designers, and if i was to use any of them camera's mention above that would cause Major Moire or banding i would most certainly experience this banding and Moire for sure with all the fashion clothing out there Mark my words not a matter of if,  but a matter of i would on the first shoot probably happen on one of the first 5 models walking out on the catwalk.

And let me tell you if i was to give a picture with that Moire or banding i would probably get black listed from every major publishing company in the world, ie, rolling stones, sports illustrated, Maxim cosmopolitan, and so on, this would be the end of my carrier as a photographer in anything that matters..

This is why you see all the top photographer who shoot for high end magazines and publishing companies use the Hasselbald medium format camera's, because those camera's DO NOT give you an image with MOIRE or BANDING.

Banding more so happens when there aren't enough tones available to recreate a seamless gradation; that's why they're most common in 8-bit image files and with image files that have been heavily compressed.

In each case, there are less colors available with which to work. Working in 16-bit mode allows for more colors. this is why 16 bit matters over 8 bit

This is one of the reason i state why the GFX 100 is no where near or close to as good as the Hasslebald H6 Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors, where the Hasselblad H6 produces real true 16 Bit, like i said you get what you pay for, $10,00.00 for the Gfx100 $47,000.00 for the H6, As you see there is a reason why the H6 Cost $37,000.00 more then the GFX 100, people need to start using their common sense rather then listing to YOUTUBE So called know it all about camera's , when you see some one on youtube trying to be a photography teacher and say that the GFX 100 Is just as good as the H6, then you know they are not who they think they are or not qualified to teach anything about photography..
of course the image shown here has been converted to lower resolution this is just for an example.
And i took this shot quickly for this example.


Meet Google Drive – One place for all your files


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 6, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> This is one of the reason i state why the GFX 100 is no where near or close to as good as the Hasslebald H6 Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors, where the Hasselblad H6 produces real true 16 Bit,....



The ADC in the Fuji GFX 100 is 16 bit just like the one in the Hasselblad H6. To say the Fuji GFX only produces 8 bit colors is just *ridiculously wrong*.

"_At the core of the GFX 100 is its new 102-megapixel backside-illuminated image sensor. This image sensor offers the same ISO range as the 51-megapixel sensor found in the GFX 50S and 50R while delivering a much larger image and *16-bit depth*._" Fuji GFX 100 Field Test: An expensive camera which delivers great image quality & performance

Joe


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of the reason i state why the GFX 100 is no where near or close to as good as the Hasslebald H6 Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors, where the Hasselblad H6 produces real true 16 Bit,....
> ...


The GFX 100 does NOT produce true 16 bit,  it does compressed but not Full Raw
and it's a Crop sensor medium format not True Full Medium format, the GFX 100 sensor size is 
33 × 44mm
the Hasselblad h6 sensor size is 53.4 x 40mm

GFX 100 is not full true medium format, it's basically a crop medium format sensor, like the Nikon D7100 is a crop of the Nikon D850


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 6, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



*You are flatly wrong.* Here's the Dpreview run down on the GFX in which you can verify that you are wrong. Fujifilm GFX 100 review I grabbed a screen shot of the specs that shows you are wrong. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


Right i see the specs but it says Raw 14/16-bit but it only does the 16 bit raw compressed.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 6, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



*You are wrong.* Fuji offers both compressed and uncompressed raw files for both the 14 and 16 bit options for the GFX. Here's a reference: diglloyd.com: Fujifilm GFX100: File Sizes in 16-bit vs 14-bit Capture (diglloyd.com excerpt)

In any case so what if you used the compressed raw. The compression Fuji uses is lossless and so has no effect on image quality -- it's just a file size compression not a lossy compression.

Please note that you are now acknowledging that you see the GFX provides 14 and 16 bit raw. You originally made this nonsense claim: "Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors,..." and said the GFX only produces 8 bit colors.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Jul 6, 2020)

Most d-slr cameras have offered 12 bit raw for over 15 years now. I have no idea where you are coming  up with all this 8-bit nonsense.

And,cough,cough, magazines published with a 180 line screen looked fantastic back in the 6- megapixel era...the screen cuts the resolution wayyyyyy down....


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...






Did not  acknowledging that at all, I said True 16 bit,  and compressed is a big difference, first of lossy compression , is not what you think if the file size is smaller then there is information still missing as not compress has more information.

And my point also was about the banding and all that, you still get the banding with the GFX 100 as h6 you do not.
i've tested this,  Plus Fujifilm no matter medium format or not them sensors on the fujifilm camera's  cause major banding and moire, they are notorious for banding and moire more so then lets say Nikon or Canon.
People have notice strange looks in the pictures going into lightroom they called it wormy waves when you zoom it in real close, this is because of the X-trans sensors, Lightroom doesn't know the full interpretation of the images from Fujifilm X-Trans Sensors.
This has been a know issue, that is why Phase One  released a special version of capture one, just for the Fujifilm camera's with X-Trans Sensors.

Lightroom to this day has not, they came up with a so called fix for the wormy patterns but it really doesn't fully fix it 100%.

And this is probably what is making the banding and moire worst then other camera's..


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Most d-slr cameras have offered 12 bit raw for over 15 years now. I have no idea where you are coming  up with all this 8-bit nonsense.
> 
> And,cough,cough, magazines published with a 180 line screen looked fantastic back in the 6- megapixel era...the screen cuts the resolution wayyyyyy down....


that's because it was for the print of the magazine,  they didn't just take the pictures for just the magazines,  they had high quality photo books they sold, and also other things they sold these pictures on other then magazines.
other wise when they was an important shoot they wouldn't want medium format for just a picture showing up on a magazine stand,  (cough, cough)
Playboy for example Marketed tons of their pictures in many ways not just magazines..

As a matter of fact Arney Freytag, of playboy would never allow any of the photographers to use 35 mm it was strictly medium format only.
Arney Freytag was the Lead And Director of Arney Freytag Of Playboy enterprise..


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 6, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Yes you did: Something i wanted to point out. "Right i see the specs but it says Raw 14/16-bit but it only does the 16 bit raw compressed."



donny1963 said:


> I said True 16 bit,


You are clueless. What then is "untrue" 16 bit?



donny1963 said:


> and compressed is a big difference, first of lossy compression ,


*The GFX offers uncompressed 16 bit raw files.* The compression option that is available is not lossy.



donny1963 said:


> is not what you think


It is exactly what I think -- lossless compression that reduces the file size without any loss of data.



donny1963 said:


> if the file size is smaller then there is information still missing as not compress has more information.



You said: "_This is one of the reason i state why the GFX 100 is no where near or close to as good as the Hasslebald H6 Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors, where the Hasselblad H6 produces real true 16 Bit,...._"

And that is ridiculous rubbish.

Each response you've offered since has been more ridiculous rubbish.


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 6, 2020)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


i'm not arguing with you any more, and it's not rubbish,  go look at a h6 16 bit color shot and then a gfx100, big difference.
i'm done with arguing,  and by the way before the digital day,  playboy was shot on medium format for general magazine pictures,   Centerfold was 8X10 Film..
just in case you have some sort of stupid argument about Medium format quality and full frame quality..


----------



## Derrel (Jul 6, 2020)

Arney Freytag was a master photographer. He was fantastic with lighting. I recall one BTS shot he did which showed the 19 lights he used for one centerfold shot...he used a lot of lights.

A lot of 1980's working methods have changed. But 4-color books still use 180- to 220- line screens for halftones....even the very highest-quality books need fairly low megapixel counts to make good reproductions. 

The use of medium format digital is more about shallow DOF and a particular "look" than either bit depth or MP count.


----------



## Jeff G (Jul 6, 2020)

I'm just fine with my Nikon, and none of this fascinating argument has compelled me to spend as much money as a small sedan would cost just for snob appeal. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 6, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> i'm not arguing with you any more,


I wasn't arguing with you I was correcting you.



donny1963 said:


> and it's not rubbish,


You said; "_Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors,..._" And yes, that is rubbish.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 6, 2020)

I plan on buying another Nikon D610 this week.


----------



## limr (Jul 6, 2020)

If I weren't already a nihilist before this thread, I would be now.


----------



## Jeff G (Jul 6, 2020)

limr said:


> If I weren't already a nihilist before this thread, I would be now.



Leonore, you know talking about religion only leads to trouble.


----------



## limr (Jul 6, 2020)

Jeff G said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > If I weren't already a nihilist before this thread, I would be now.
> ...



Um...do you need to look up nihilism?


----------



## Jeff G (Jul 6, 2020)

I know what it means   just teasin'


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2020)




----------



## donny1963 (Jul 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Arney Freytag was a master photographer. He was fantastic with lighting. I recall one BTS shot he did which showed the 19 lights he used for one centerfold shot...he used a lot of lights.
> 
> A lot of 1980's working methods have changed. But 4-color books still use 180- to 220- line screens for halftones....even the very highest-quality books need fairly low megapixel counts to make good reproductions.
> 
> The use of medium format digital is more about shallow DOF and a particular "look" than either bit depth or MP count.


I know all about Arney Freytag , and how he did things he used some times 30 lights,  by the way he was the one who did all the centerfolds, no one else, they was quite a few us doing playboy shoots, 
but Arney Freytag was the only one doing the centerfold shots, he was a nice guy too,  he was actually a painter then decided he liked photography, started doing street photography in Chicago, that is where he was from, And then the rest is history.
The GFX 100 is really not true 16 bit,  or should i correct myself not True 16 Bit full Raw,  full Medium format,  
And my real point is that camera is really not to be trusted for serious photography for work that matters.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 7, 2020)

What cameras are the Playboy crew using these days?


----------



## Original katomi (Jul 7, 2020)

Their  phones lol


----------



## donny1963 (Jul 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> What cameras are the Playboy crew using these days?



No Idea, i was no longer doing anything for them after 2003, i believe around 2005 they switched to digital and stopped doing the 8X10 to shoot the centerfold, and just took a digital shot and blew it up.
I have no idea what digital Camera's they used.

Today they are not using anything Playboy doesn't exist except for Playboy Plus, which is not managed or owned by original playboy enterprise.
I believe it was sold in 2017 when hugh hefner died to Rizvi Traverse Management, they was in partnership with Hefner for some time, until he died then  Rizvi Traverse Management took over playboy completely.
as of march playboy no longer prints the magazines, it's all Digital online.
I have no Idea what Rizvi Traverse Management uses to create the digital images and video.
Most magazine companies now do not have photographers working exclusively for them any more, it's all hired freelance.
except for Vogue i believe they have a couple of exclusive photographers and also use freelance.
Maxim is all Freelance now, where back in 2002 it was mostly their specific exclusive photographers that was on the payroll.

Not sure how it is with rolling stones, but i know back in the 80's they was quite a few of them and i know that annie leibovitz, was one of their go to main photographers.

I know annie leibovitz use to use Medium format film most of the time, and the last time i saw her was about 4 years ago and she had a Hasselblad H5 in her hands, So i assumed she stuck with Medium format but in digital format.

Now the H6 is out i'm willing to bet that is what she is using, because of how much better the H6 is vs the H5 not to mention she can afford to pick a hand full of them camera's 
without  a problem, she is a total millionaire, she had made millions, with her work, especially that John Lennon Picture
that was plastered all over the place. and is now in art museums along with many of her other work.
I believe now she is teaching Master Classes around the world.
I have to admit she deserves all she earned she was amazing.


I don't do Photography as much any more, i'm now doing cinematography,  as a freelance for a few companies, some i work with them, some i do it alone, i done ton of  music videos.

also Some cinematography crews that do some series that is picked up by Netfix,  and i also work on my own shooting models on video alot like playboy did.

I use a RED weapon with both a DSMC PL Mount and also
a DSMC S35 AL Canon Mount.

i can shoot up to 8K 60 fps with that camera, but it's an expensive way to go, not only because of the equipment cost, but also media it uses, The red mini mag media card for just a tad under 1TB cost over $2,000.00
and when your shooting 8K 60 fps 1 TB of media fills up on that card pretty fast.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 7, 2020)

donny1963 said:


> The GFX 100 is really not true 16 bit,


Yes it is and you are obviously wrong. Reference: Fujifilm GFX 100 review


donny1963 said:


> or should i correct myself


Heaven forbid.


donny1963 said:


> not True 16 Bit full Raw,


Yes it is and you are obviously wrong -- see reference above.

And let's recall what you originally said: "_Becuase the GFX100 even tho it's a cropped Medium Format it only produces 8 bit colors,..._" That's not just wrong that's clueless nonsense.

Joe


donny1963 said:


> full Medium format,
> And my real point is that camera is really not to be trusted for serious photography for work that matters.


----------

