Are Medium Format Cameras Worth It For Astrophotography?
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 28. 08. 2024
- đ· Head to MPB and get an instant quote for your unused gear - bit.ly/alynwal...
đ ORDER MY BOOK! - geni.us/nights...
đ Astro Workflow Lightroom Presets - geni.us/astrop...
In this video we look at whether the Fujifilm GFX50SII is any good for astrophotography and see how it stacks up against the full-frame Sony a7IV.
đ Join the Support on Patreon - / alynwallace
đ· All the gear I use - alynwallacepho...
đ© Mailing List - alynwallacepho...
đ Merch - teespring.com/...
Z/V Plate - www.moveshootm...
đ 5% off Move Shoot Move Star Tracker with code ALYN
www.moveshootmo...?aff=14
đ 20% off fotoVUE Books with code ALYN
www.fotovue.com/
đ· $30 off + priority service at Spencer Cameras with code alynwallace2022 - www.spencersca...
You may also like AstroBackyard, Nebula Photos, Peter Zelinka, AstroAddict, AstroBiscuit, Dylan O'Donnell, Nightscape Images, Helena's Astrophotography, Thomas Heaton, Nigel Danson, Michael Shainblum, Mads Peter Iversen, fototripper, Nick Page, Adam Gibbs, James Popsys and Dave Morrow.
Most of the negatives kind of fall apart as soon as you use a tracker. You can get long enough exposures like 30s-40s at F4 with the 20-35mm and 1600 or 3200 ISO that are just incredible. I have the 100s so I get 100 mp. I use the Sky Watcher and it handles the weight just fine. Also the lenses have zero comma and other issues wide open at F4. Not sure what those fringes are but I donât have any issues like that. I am surprised you didnât review it in that manner. I love your videos but this one just felt a bit rushed to conclusions.
This is how exactly how I shoot astro with the GFX 100S as well. Until we get faster lenses, a tracker is a must. I use the Fornax Lightrack 2.
I'd fully agree to that, Daniel. Using the Fuji GFX 50s II and the 80mn 1.7 with a tracker the results are just insane. Of course, this is no wide field but a pano stitch gives an image that looks otherwordly. Also true that ha light pops out. Receently I tested the 45mn 2.8 but did not have the time to check reesults yet. Very excited about this camera. Pricewise, I'm not sure if there is such a big difference to Sony.
Well this has solved my lust for a Fuji MF camera for Astro, and I'm thankful considering the price! I was impressed with Fuji X-trans APS-C cameras in terms of Ha performance and noise to some extent. I've tested a number of camera brands and noticed stock Fuji cameras are significantly more sensitive to emission nebulae compared to Canon, Sony, Nikon and Panasonic, but I'll stick to APS-C, thanks for the test.
Yup, I've noticed good Ha in Fujifilm images over the years. I was once convinced an image that was featured in my WITNs video was from an astro modified camera until the photographer corrected me that it was a stock crop sensor fujifilm
â@@AlynWallacewhat i need for taking photos Ha with my sony a7iv without moded camera :)
The sensor on the 50Sii is ancient these days which will account for some of the shadow recovery issues. I find my 100S pretty good for shadows but agree that the lack of fast, wide lenses hurts them for Astro use. I keep an HA Modded X-T3 for Astro myself :)
Wow nice set up. Im contemplating the same. Why did you have yo mod the XT3 when its Xtrans sensor is HA sensitive compared to Bayer sensors?
@@maggiem1323 I actually sold off the HA Modded X-T3 a few months back. My colour blindness really struggled with removing the magenta cast and it made editing an absolute chore. Personally Iâm not so sure about the X-Trans HA sensitivity - the X-Trans sensors are geared more for green sensitivity than reds based on the pixel layout vs bayer.
Recently Iâve been shooting with the 100S and an adapted Sigma 35mm 1.4 art in 35mm crop mode if I go and shoot Astro - which is becoming less and less if Iâm honest.
One thing, the F stop conversion for MF to FF is a reference to the focal plane. For the Aperture regarding light F4 is F4 so you using the same shot settings effectively means the GFX is 1 stop underexposed. Check them in daylight and you will see that.
That said as a GFX user I agree it's not great for astro, my limited knowledge puts it down to the faster glass for FF letting you get more light where F4 on the Fuji you are always struggling to get enough light in the shadows. Cheers
Thank you for confirming my thought. When he said that the one aperture is equivalent to the other, I immediately knew something is wrong here... I was in that debate a while ago and did a lot of research on that topic to eventually come to the conclusion that an f1.4 projects the same brightness on any sensor size, so it shouldn't be compensated for when changing sensor sizes. There is however an adaptor to project a full frame image from a full frame lens onto a crop sensor. In that case the brightness (f stop) would essentially change, but not the focal length as the same image is just condensed onto smaller sensor. Thank you for the comment, hopefully he realized. But I still could be wrong but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
No, he was right. I realize this has been the subject of many, many arguments, but you can both mathematically and experimentally verify what he said about aperture is just how digital cameras work (the discussion on the sensors at the pixel level wasnât quite spot on though).
For the vast, vast majority of photography, an understanding the math is completely unnecessary, because youâre operating so far within the capabilities of the equipment that you can 100% focus on the art, and you can more or less safely avoid it he equivalence discussions. On the other hand, I do think that high-level Astro is probably one genre where at having just a cursory understanding is helpful
Given your experience with astro using GFX, does the image quality improve with higher ISO? When I shoot stars using a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera for 15 seconds, I shoot at f2.8 and ISO 640+. F3.5 and ISO 64 seem just too low even for post. Also curious if you tried using the new 55mm f1.7.
@@adamzhang3028 my astro goes as far as Aurora and the occasional MW so at iso 3200 +/- a stop. MF is no magic cure, I use a 50Sii and i think the noise is slightly less than my previous Sony A7Rii. I've not tried the 1.7 purely as it's not the focal length I use, all winter I've threatened to get a sigma Art 24/1.4 as the vignette shouldn't be a problem on slightly cropped images.
â@@jonpaulpepen9470 i still believe f4 is f4 on any format. Would you please point me towards proper math calculation so I can verify what you are saying?
Equivalent aperture gives you the same depth of field, not the same amount of light. Equivalent exposures require identical settings, i.e. aperture, on FF and medium format. That's why your picture was that much darker. Not saying the Fuji (glas) is any good for astro though.
I was going to post the same. Use equivalency for depth of field, not exposure.
Thanks. Conclusion still applies, there aren't fast enough lenses for medium format
@@AlynWallace Within the realm of autofocus lenses, no there are not. When it comes to manual focus there are some options but none as fast as for 35mm cameras.
I'm not an astrophotographer, but when calculating the slowest possible shutter speed do you use the '500 rule' with the actual focal length or the equivalent focal length?
@@HesselFolkertsma For the 500 rule you would have to use the full-frame equivalent. Or for example if you use the crop sensor focal length you use 300 instead of 500.
@@AlynWallace thanks Alyn, I learned something today âïž
Bright Monitoring! Never knew I had that on my Sony, thanks that's going to save time in the future
Yes, really awesome for Astro or really dark photography. Enjoy
In which menu and where can I find this option?
Thanks
Prob a little too late now, but Irix have a 45mm f1.4 for the GFX which looks pretty good and the Pentax 645z has 45 and 55mm lens a f2.8 and 35mm f3.5. I think we'd need to be using a tracker to get the best performance out of MF, but even then, that MP count is going to hurt!
Thanks Allan. You could have exposed the GFX for 18 seconds using the rule of 500 with the difference in sensor size taken into account.. I have never had a Fuji GFX 50r image fall apart like that. There has to be something more to it. Also Capture One definitely imports a better GFX image than Photoshop or Light Room for some reason.
Great vid đjd
In those images I was comparing the GFX30mm against the FE24mm. To use the 500 rule you have to use the full-frame equivalent focal length, which is 24mm. So I used the same shutter speed for both = 15 secs.
Also there isn't a 18 second exposure option đą on the Fuji cameras yet
I had waited for a medium format camera comparison video for a while. Thanks!
Many of the "pain points" you mentioned in this video for Fuji & for Sony, Nikon has thought about:
âą I've found that stock/non-modified Nikon Z cameras (w/fast lenses &/or trackers) pick up on Ha colors. Even does well with blue of reflection Nebulae. // They do extremely well Astro-modified.
âą up to 900 sec exposures, before you have to go into Bulb.
âą Starlight view to help with composition in the dark.
âą "Warm Color Display" modes to turn your screen warm/red to protect your night vision. You can choose whether you want the full screen that way or just your settings/menu.
âą Illuminated buttons, also helpful in the dark. Monitor screen can be dimmed ALOT too.
& then weird quirks, such as it actually does better with VR ON, even on a tripod. Super counterintuitive, after years of shooting DSLRs. But Ive tried it & I swear the images look best when utilizing VR.
^^Just to name a few things. I know alot of ppl make a fuss over AF tech nowadays, but that doesn't apply to Astrophotography & Nikon really IS thinking about their users. It's a shame more ppl don't look at Nikon Z mirrorless as viable, well-rounded options.
I'm a life-long Nikon shooter, so I am admittedly a bit biased. But I've also been knowing for a while now that I want to be a "dual-system" photog & I have been dazzled by Fuji's medium format cameras.
I dont think this video has detered me. However, I'm also very keen on some Sony lenses, by Sony or Tamron/Sigma/Samyang etc, so I think an adapter is in my immediate future...& the A7iv is a pretty spectacular camera**.
**Tho I'm waiting to see if Nikon will drop a Z6iii in the next couple of years.
Great comments.
Thanks, happy to hear that the Z cameras perform well for astro. I've been shooting with a D750 these past years and currently thinking of getting the rather heftily priced Z8.
Furthermore, I agree with you on the fuss over AF. Most of us aren't professional sports photographers so having super high performance in this aspect of camera tech isn't as important as the 'experts' on here make it out to be.
Also noteworthy is that all Sony or third party (i.e. Sigma, Tamron) lenses for the E mount can be adapted to Nikon Z mount cameras with full autofocus using a Megadap ETZ adaptor. I use one with the Sony 14mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 100-400.
I've also found my Nikon Z cameras to be excellent in terms of ergonomics, build quality, shadow recovery, colours, reliability and all-round general usage for astro, landscape, and portrait photography.
@@bencollins7684 Not sure if you'll ever read this, but wanted to say thanks for the info about the Megadap, I didn't know such a thing existed. This could be useful in staying within the Nikon ecosystem for me (I have a Z50 but considering Sony full frame due to wider lens choice, this could see me go to a Z6ii instead).
@@UKFR no problem. I've actually found the is a little bit of slop in the first version of the Megadap ETZ11 adaptor although I haven't had any issues using my E mount 14mm 1.8 wide open for asto. There is some slight change in exposure with the E mount Sigma 100-400 between some shots but I don't know if it's the adaptor or lens. However, they've brought out a newer version (ETZ21) that is meant to be improved. There is also the Meike and the Fotodiox versions of the adaptor. The Fotodiox to me seemed to look a bit more 'premium' quality.
Don't know if any other than the Megadap work with crop sensors.
Put it on a tracker and that's when it shines. I've been using my GFX 50s for 3 years now and don't think I'll be going back to FF for the foreseeable future. Lenses are absolute beasts, virtually no aberrations wide open, corner to corner. But I also bring an adapted Sigma ART 40mm, for when I want to shoot at f1.4 to f2.5-ish.
Thanks a lot for this video. I believe that the GFX50SII image looks darker because you used ISO 6400 on both. In order to get the images as similar as possible between the two cameras, you need to apply the squared crop factor to the ISO (in addition to applying the crop factor to the focal length and to the f/stop). In this specific case, you need to multiply the ISO on the GFX50IIt by 1.6 (ISO 10200). The noise of the GFX50SII already compares poorly to the Sony A7IV at same ISO (from ISO 400 onwards the GFX50SII has more than 1 stop worse noise). Add to this the fact that you need to increase the ISO on the GFX50SII to compensate for the larger sensor (and therefore less density of light on the sensor) and you end up with almost 2 stops more noise on the GFX50SII than on the Sony A7IV. The website photonstophotos.net show all the data for every possible camera.
I was gonna come here to say this. This is definitely a settings issue here.
End result is that there is a significant difference in image exposure, hardly surprising the Fuji image fell apart when stretching. The Fuji system also allows to preview exposure/ white balance and it can be assigned to a function button. I can easily compose night images on my X-T2 without having to take a photo. I just set preview exposure on,and turn the ISO dial up to frame my image. It's more than bright enough to see the night sky
Oh, thank you, Alyn! I had no option to take a medium format to test, so your video helped a lot to finalize the decision about new body)))
always when I see orion I get that feeling when I first consciously looked at the stars one winter night and started my astronomy journey
So weird with the Fuji. Maybe a broken sensor? I can underexpose my shots 6 stops and get a good image. Havenât done Astro with it though.
When he mentioned the 30s limit I was so glad that my EOS 6D is compatible with Magic Lantern. This unofficial firmware add-on allows any exposure time.
A number of years ago Luminous Landscape did a Astro-photography article using the Pentax on a star tracker. Iâve wanted to replicate that ever since, probably with the Hasselblad x2d, Pentax and top lenses. Donât give up just find the right set up. The results can be stunning.
Hey Alyn! Nice video as always. I have a Nikon Z6ii. One of the main reasons I bought it was the inbuilt intervalometer with upto 15 minutes exposure capability. Its pretty good for capturing H-alpha emissions too. I jumped from a Nikon D5300, so was a quantum jump at that.
Just got a modded Z6II myself :)
@@AlynWallace excited to see some cool outputs from it!
Get the Z 20mm f1.8⊠itâs just spectacular for Astro
I've shot night sky extensively with the GFX50sii and your conclusions are much the same, but it's more complicated. There's a randomness with the images in terms of noise and the purple amp glow, and sometimes it comes out looking clean. I suspect it's due to the age of the sensor, which isn't BSI like the 100mp version, and basically most recent cameras. It also reacts differently to various night scenes, and randomly responds alternately well and poorly to being pushed in post. And yet, the 8 and 15 minute exposures yield some of the cleanest files imaginable, as it soaks in the light and turns night into day.
The camera obviously needs faster glass to perform reasonably though, and I adapted an EF Sigma 35 1.4 with really good results that allows the camera to operate as expected. But there's strong vignetting that requires cropping, a problem with all adapted wide to wide-ish lenses on GFX. The GF mount Mitakon 85 1.2 also produces amazing images on the 50sii, but the focal length is limiting for SS without a tracker.
Long story short, went back to Fuji X for astro, which has always been an off-the-shelf gem for that purpose
Thanks for sharing your personal experience and info!
Iâve always wondered this. Thank you so much for putting in the work.
Isnât there a bulb mode on Fuji to see your composition in dark?
Also the Sony sensor is a BSI sensor where the Fuji isn't. I know the older Canon cameras with non BSI sensors are horrible at recovering shadows also.
This is the issue with the 50... the 100 is BSI and doesn't get the amp glow and shadow noise despite the tighter pixel pitch
Pleeeeease Sony, release a firmware update for extended shutter speeds đđđ
Long exposure and timelapse on screen countdown info instead of complete blackout would be useful too.
Hell yeah, extended shutter would be awesome.
I shoot with Fuji GFX since 5 years now⊠I know it is bulky, I know it is heavy, I know it is expansive⊠But⊠Never had issues you reported. That sounds very very strange to me.
However you could run raf files into DXO pure Raw and probably you'll have a great surprise.
I agree with DXO, somehow putting the raws directly into LR Classic just does not work. They are not sharp, DOX fixes this.
BUT you don't want to run your long exposure astro pictures through DXO. You lose alot of detail in the stars.
Hello, I donât know this clip for how long ago but all you camera and lens you said on MPB is cheap is not available on MPB web, second MPB use to be good but now the price too high so better to buy new , tell MPB , thank you
I was curious about that myself. Thanks for the video. Great insight.
Another positive point for Nikon. We have up to 900 seconds of exposure, before entering Bulb mode. Even intermediate-level cameras with the Z6II and Z7II have exposures of up to 900 seconds.
Brilliant monitoring and a tool we've had at Nikon for a long time. Nikon Z9 and Z8 have further enhanced this exciting feature.
thanks for the tip about the "bright monitoring" feature, I had no idea about it. oh, and, I don't pretend to stick my finger on the wound, but the A7RV shows a countdown when using the bulb timer.
4:20 Pretty much all cameras will pick up IR to some extent. It's just filtered. You can test this by pointing your TV remote at your camera and pressing a button. Even non-modified cameras will pick up the IR. Of course, if you removed the filter it will be brighter.
That specific light doesn't show up on Canon and Nikon cameras.
Thanks for the test! Always thought it was a shame that Fuji didn't make full frame camera's, making it financially unrealistic for me to upgrade from their crop X system. Judging by the results in your video how the medium format performans for astro I feel a little bit less sad though đ
Did not know about Bright Monitoring on my Sony... have now assigned it to a custom button!
So many people in the comments not understanding the f-ratio multiplied by crop factor, you should make a video about it (even tho there are already plenty)!
People really can't understand the difference between exposure and total amount of light gathered, and that signal to noise ratio depends on the latter.
I'd do it myself but I'm not sure my spoken english is good enough ahha.
All i want is to have over 30 seconds without an intervelometer. Dont understand how camera companies dont do that
You were a legend, Alyn.
Crop factor is applicable only to focal length, not to f-numer! Difference between those two setups which you compared was: in lenses on Fuji were slower, so at same exposure time Fuji gathered less light.
Slower lenses lead to worse SNR.
By the way Irix has 45mm f1.4 lense for Fuji medium format.
1) The GFX line doesnât have X-trans. For this line Fuji purchases the sensor from Sony.
2) Agree.
@@is6566 yes, I mixed it with their APS-C lineup... I will rewrite to not mislead people. Btw I found that Pentax, Hasseblade and Fuji has a sensor from Sony for their medium format, but each company asked Sony for some custom tweaks. Also each company processing data from the sensor in its own way. So comparison could still be interesting.
Comparison could be interesting, yes. Especially if both native lenses (adjusting exposure time properly for F value) and adapted lenses are both used.
Andrew, the compensation in the F number refers to how it acts for the focal plane F3.5 on MF is the same depth as F2.8 on FF but you are right that it doesn't apply to the light so this GFX exposure is almost a stop underexposed.
Thanks. Useful I think. I shoot mostly with the 100s and I recently had an opportunity to do milky way down under. Did shoot with the recent 20-35. The foreground does get grainy and the best solution for that is to shoot a long exposure of it at low iso. For the sky I got excellent results with exposures of 25-30 seconds with no trails and no coma. I am curious to put the GFX on the Benro Polaris and see how it behaves. Your point about brighter lenses for the MF is well taken. Fuji and others have not gone there because the lenses would end up not only big and heavy but very likely insanely expensive. Keep up the good work!!
WOW that was an outcome I wasnt expecting
Good video Alyn. You have to try how the ZV-E1 in astrophotography, especially to see if it performs like the A7SIII (they are supposed to have the same sensor) and if when heated more generates more "hot pixels".
Yeah they're same sensor so probably no difference. Capturing images won't really heat up the sensor that much AFAIK, only extended recording of 4K footage etc would.
I would rather get a medium format, Astro photography, specific camera with cooling, and in some cases built in guiding and filter wheels like the SBIG 404
RIP legend
Of course! Billion times more light on the sensor đ so even 2 seconds shot on iso 200 will look like 25 seconds iso 3200 on all other cameras đȘ
I've actually been looking in to such, but doesn't seem like there's a good wide angle lens available? đ€ Like 10 or 14mm
Thank you for that, I had wondered about medium format, but I can see it clearly it has its limitations, Cheers.
I'd be interested in a "making of" for your selfie Milky Way timelapse.
Saved me a bunch of money!
Size isnât everything!! I knew it!! Really interesting test and results đđ
You mentioned in a reply to my comment on your last video that you were with Mark Denney in Spain, on the Photopills workshop. Did he do any nighttime photography by chance, because he uses a Fuji medium format, but it is a different model - I think his is 100MP resolution. I can remember if any of his lenses are faster than F4.
Thanks Alyn
Mpb really depends on where you live! They only offer 2/3 of the price I can get on local second hand shops.
Yes i found the same with my gfx 50s i and tbh i thought this will be my go to astro camera, i even used a sigma 50 art with adapter at f2 but when its darkâs especially at iso 6400 shadows are just a mess
you should test the new one.
No use. Sony + FF fans wontblet it happen. That 100 II is a beast.
A couple of misleading points with this video.
1. The conversion you did from MF to FF in terms of F/Stop only applies to the depth of field, not the amount of light. F/3.5 on the GFX = F/2.8 on FF in terms of depth of field, not the amount of light. F/3.5 = F/3.5 FF = F/3.5 APSC for the amount of light the lens allows through the aperture.
2. @7:26 Larger sensors don't necessarily have an advantage in lower light, for the most part, it just *looks* like they do. "Larger" pixel pitch on a larger sensor is really where the advantage lies; hence, the reason A7S line is so fantastic at night photography. I cannot "comfortably" scale up my Z6 file to my Z7 resolution, but when I scale down my Nikon Z7 resolution to the same size as my Z6, there is no discernable noise difference between my night sky files. Heck, my stock Fuji X-T3 is my all time favorite night sky camera that I use, because of the Ha that passes through the color filter array, and it has an APS-C sensor.
1. The equivalent aperture point has been brought up in the comments a few times and many thanks to everyone for that. It doesn't change the conclusion however, there aren't fast enough lenses available for medium format cameras.
2. The sensor being larger is an advantage in that you have more room for a larger pixel pitch as I discussed in the video but then you can have a smaller pixel pitch on a larger sensor (again as demonstrated) so yes you can't just straight forwardly say larger is better. There's lots of other lesser advantages like heat dissipation and decreased cross talk too. With regards to downsampling images, you may not notice a difference in SOOC images that are unedited, but images from a camera with a larger pixel pitch will have much more information in the shadows so if you do heavy shadow lifting in post before you downsample and compare, which practically all Milky Way photographers will do, there is a significant difference.
It's that ancient 50MP sensor. The 100s doesn't struggle, at all.
What about Hasselblad? Are they better than Sony?
Haha was about to post about the Sony a7R5 and how itâs addressed all that and then you said it.
I love it for long expo and for Astro also.
Ok, dumb question, why did you use an ISO of 64 on the Fuji and an ISO of 6400 on the Sony? Or is that a misprint on the video at 6 min 4 secs? Thanks for another great video.
Yeah should have read 6400 sorry
More interesting would be to compare Sony with medium format from Pentax. Pentax has 645Z which has a better sensor than Pentax K1 and Pentax K1 is one of the best for astrophotography... it has so "deep" raws you can pull from it so much in PS... Imagine how 645Z would work.
So maybe your next video could be a comparison of available medium formats?)))
645 is definitely not better than the K1 in low light, it's an old sensor and it won't perform well for astro, apart from the lack of fast lens which the true limiting factor for MF.
Thanks for the video. I've been always I terested in difference between FF and MF. Tell me, please, how did you calculate differences between medium format lenses and full frame lenses? For example 40mm lens on medium format how much is it in full frame?
32mm in ff, to convert Gfx MF to FF multiply by 0.8
The problem is that for such big sensors a telescope typical construction would be necessary to the lenses. Large diameter but light tubes and less optical elements. However, that would a solution to astro exclusively. No motor, stabilization or autofocus. Besides, the evolution of sensors had so many aspects that the pixel size is not that important today. For astro actually apsc and smaller sensors perform almost the same. Comparing modern apsc to older fullframe the smaller new sensor are better. The lenses also need to be tested in terms of T scale instead.
Alyn, where do I find the bright monitoring setting on the A7IV? sound like I have been missing something through our entire trip in the Atacama...
You have to go into the custom button settings and assign it to a custom button. Crazy how hidden it is.
@@AlynWallace Yes, just found a CZcams that explains it czcams.com/video/tBbFwTb8q6Y/video.html
So in your mind, which of the Sony lineup would be the better astro cameras? As a previous owner of an A6300 and now on phone, i'm dying to get a real camera again. something in the A7 lineup seems like a popular choice but i have no idea why or what, lol
for astro landscape*
Oh... how I miss going out there and doing this...
Seems like MPB are selling Nikon Z gear for higher prices than the retail new price in Europe. Hopefully none of of your Nikon audience members buys from them without checking current prices and loses money. :/
Do you have an example because I just checked a few Z cameras and they're all under the RRP price of EU stores.
A fellow attendee at Dan Zafraâs Monument Valley workshop and subsequent Nightscaper conference was producing stunning results with his Fujifilm GFX100s (I might not have exact model). Perhaps he will view and comment.
Wow. I'm actually surprised the files don't hold shadows. Curious about the noise processing and spatial filtering on that Fuji....
One of the features of the GFX camera is how excellent the shadow recovery is. You can totally underexpose (have a literally black screen out of camera) and recover the scene in post processing perfectly. This âtestâ was designed without previous research on the capabilities and weaknesses of the GFX camera and lens system. I am subscribed to his channel but honestly he would be better off to remove this video (which of course he canât because itâs sponsored). As a minimum do a follow up with proper testing. No shame in learning.
@@is6566 How do you setup the camera so you can push shadows?
I had the GFX 100 before I sold it a year ago. When I had it, I used it exclusively for landscape photography. I always used Aperture Priority mode, set the F and got exposure compensation to a negative value -0.3 or -0.7 or even larger negative number. Almost always base ISO. And that was it really. Part of the image in the shadows might have been totally dark but in Capture One you could lift the shadows completely. I always played with the exposure compensation to adjust just enough so the bright areas like the sky are not blown but nice blue. The unprocessed images look dark but after a few slider moves in CO it looks amazing. This was usually the only post processing to do. The colors, the tones and resolution were the best from that camera. Better than the Nikon D 850 colors. Better than Canon R5 colors. Some people in this thread commenting how the GFX lenses are bad. The farthest from the truth in my experience. Incredible lenses for quality. They are just not Astro lenses and I didnât do Astro but if you use longer exposure because the lens lets through less light then you should be able to use low ISO and you wonât have the noise issue. I sold the GFX because of the weight. I plan to get a 100S. Much lighter and smaller. As for shadow recovery, I think there is video on CZcams where a guy shows a total black GFX 100 raw file taken at base ISO and he just brightens it up in CO to a completely normal scene without any noise. You just canât use high ISO to reduce exposure time. Thatâs not going to work. Use low ISO and longer exposure. I bet the results would be much different.
This is not the video I was thinking of but DPreview (RIP) mentioned this in their GFX 100 First Impressions video. They showed an example. Search for the video, itâs after 8:22. This is not it but itâs close. They had ISO 800 in that shot.
Also very limited telephotos on GFX for noon shots
Don't understood why you have decided to expose the Fuji shot unproperly.
Explain?
Hey, I have a Sony, and I will beg! Hahahaha how do we get more attention on these features! 5:17
I agree itâs not a good camera for the job but aperture equivalence is calculated for DOF not light itâs collecting. So for the amount of light collecting f4 = f4. Otherwise having 1 stop lower aperture means 1/2 the light. If you want to calculate how shallow depth of field you want though you can use that conversion method.
Given an F number with two different sensor sizes the exposure is the same, the amount of light collected is not.
Signal to noise ration, ie how clean is your image, depends on the total amount of light gathered, not on the exposure, so it's correct to apply the crop factor to both f stop and focal length.
A micro 4/3 for example will give you the same noise at f/2 that a fullframe gives at f/4 if used with the same exposure time, if both used at f/2 the FF has two stops of noise adavantage
@@v0ldy54 no it does not. Given the same pixel size with the same aperture & shutter speed the snr is exactly the same. So no crop is needed. In the case of pixel size not matching a convolution algorithm of pixel binning can be applied to compare both
@@keith5824 nope, as I said (or actually, as physics says) SNR depends on the TOTAL amount of light gathered.
Pick a full frame and a M43 with the same pixels ( or simply use a M43 sized crop of the full frame compared to the full image to exclude every other variable) and given the same f stop, ISO and exposure time the FF will have 2 stop advantage because it's collecting 4 times more light overall because the sensor is bigger
@@v0ldy54 nope. It does not collect twice the light. I think a fundamental premise you forgot to mention is when subject is at the same distance, of which is the only way to compare and keep dof the same. If subject is at the same distance, your subject on FF will be smaller than on M43. If you crop in, they will look exactly the same (given exposure and pixel size the same)
@@keith5824 why would the subject be smaller, obviously you need to compensate by using a longer focale lenght on the larger sensore, otherwise why would you even compare the two images
Your explanation doesn't explain why fuji files fall apart like that tho! my 10 year old nikon has better shadow recovery at 6400 than that!
Definition of Astrophotography: Astrophotography, also known as astronomical imaging, is the photography or imaging of astronomical objects, celestial events, or AREAS of the night sky. Important is the word "AREAS". So with Astrophotography you photograph something specific in the sky and your main aim is to depict this object in an astronomical context. Contrary what you are doing, using the night sky as a beautiful background for your landscape pictures. Nothing against you pics - they are beautiful - but they are not astrophotography at all. It would be like a video called: "Are helmets worth it for mountain climbing" and then I would walk in the video with my dog up a hill.....
It's still astrophotography even if it has a landscape. What he usually does is landscape astrophotography.
Your example is a bit exaggerated dude and why be so anal? The images ultimately capture areas of the night sky and photons from objects in outer space. It's landscape and/or wide-angle astrophotography which still falls under the category of astrophotography. You're talking specifically about deep-sky astrophotography.
@@AlynWallace First of all, just to be precise, the opposite of deep-sky AP would be planetary AP - and your directing the camera in the direction of the night sky would from that point of view rather deep-sky.. Anyway, this is not the point and I do not see why the discussion has to go below the belt-line.... The point is, that if you use Astrophotography like that in your titles, it is misleading imho. If you would add Landscape in front people would know what to expect....
The best term for Alyn's night images is "Nightscapes", rather than Astrophotography.
@@RyanLunaPhotography There's no consensus but nightscapes is very common, however, nightscape don't necessarily require an astronomical subject so perhaps landscape astrophotography would be better suited to my work specifically. Anyway the SEO for "astrophotography" is better than "nightscapes" hence the choice :)
Nice brother
Wow that failed so bad, I had far superior results back when I first started with an entry level Nikon crop sensor camera. You couldn't do a thing with that setup.
Bright Monitoring - who knew? [Only available when assigned to a custom button. Well disguised Sony!]
Very very surprising to see the Fuji files fall apart like that đź
Wrong lens to use
Don't worst your money: Old Canon 6D astromod and Samyang lenses 14mm 20mm 24mm is cheaper and amazing performance
I will empty my bank account the day Sony makes a medium camera
Kindly remove your signature from the sky. I don't want to photograph it with the milkyway đ
Sony, I will give my right limb for the right to take 4 minute exposures on my A7IV...
Your concept of aperture is not right. F4 is F4 regardless of sensor size. Aperture is to measure the lens ability to gather light. The crop factor conversion is referring to the DOF.
NO, an absolutely ridiculous price for any camera.
First đ