Rumors of GFX100 replacement in 2023

To me it means less aliasing, among other things. But mostly that.

I do not print larger with high-resolution than with low-resolution sensors.
For me, it means more data: better details when downscaled, more data for better post-processing, and less aliasing.

Both SDC and AI NR seem to work better with higher resolution. Of course, perspective correction and leveling also work better with higher resolution.

Hi,

I have always produced a print. This, from the film days, where I didn't want to shoot positive and stick the slides into a projector.

135 small format didn't make as nice an 8x10 to hang on the wall or stick in a coffee table book as 645 medium format did.

Same was true for digital. The APS-C sensor cameras didn't do as well as the APS-H ones. Meaning 2-3 MP v 6 MP. Later I wanted larger than 8x10 and moved to MF again as that offered 16 MP for a better 11x14 print. Keep in mind there are always pixels lost from the shooting aspect ratio to the printed one.

Once I picked up a Nikon Df, with those 16 MP, I passed on most of the other cameras. I figured I could do just fine with the printer I had feeding it from the Df. Until I wanted to print larger once again. Now at 16x20. So I looked around and chose a 40 MP MF.

But that's back to a Kodak CCD and limitations over the newer CMOS from Sony. Now I can say that for where I am now with printing, a 50 MP would do well. Seemingly. However, I don't care for the aliasing it has. And that means looking at the 100 MP sensor instead.

So, that's it in a nutshell.

Stan

16"x20" is a print size you can do on a printer like the P900. At A2 size I'm having trouble telling a difference between my cameras from m4/3 to medium format to 100MP stitched with a Rhinocam. Perhaps it's just me.

Hi,

I am also doing that size on a specialized Direct To Garment printer using DuPont Artistri inks. And there it make a greater difference than it does on paper.

Yes, I could have done this using a Nikon D850 but there I have to cut more off the ends to get to 5:4 as it's 3:2 than I do from 4:3. And the Pentax P645D and all these lenses cost less than a used D850 back in 2020. And I've been doing fine with the 645D. So my eyeballing upgrades doesn't have any urgency. I ought to go fo a P645z, but would rather have the 100 MP sensor over the 50 MP one and that isn't an option with Pentax.

Stan

I did a bit of reading. That makes sense and I see how it applies to the fashion industry. It depends what you take pictures of I guess.

Switch to monochrome.

And how sensitive you are to the aliasing artifacts. For me, once seen, they're hard to unsee.

Hi,

Yes. Yes, they are. Rather like the arrow in the middle of the FedEx logo.... ;)

Stan

I like the 1st four Ideas but the higher MP count is a little overkill I think. I love what I'm getting from my 100s right now. I don't want to sacrifice noise for more resolution.

There's no reason why higher resolution should cause more noise at the same print size. These days, sensors have FWCs of about 3000 electrons per square micrometer, independent of resolution.

Of course a 150 MP 40x53mm sensor is virtually identical in resolution to the 100 MP 33x44mm GFX. There may be incremental improvements and slightly different effects of aperture. So a 200 MP sensor would help differentiate the two, and get one step ahead of the IQ4.

So if we get to 150 MP or 200 MP will the GFX100 2 best the grail Phase One IQ4?
Will the 120 Macro lenses stack up well in a competition?
Will it best Phase One in sport?
Are you already considering pulling the trigger on the unannounced GFX 100 2?

Probably the SLR version, but not the tech camera with the Rodie HR lenses.
Probably.
You're joking.
Of course.

Semi joking with sport. Put it there for you as hoped it would get you to smile or laugh . As for sport, the photo I would love to see is photo of you at some sport event with maybe grand kids game shooting with the next Gfx on a monopod. It is a photo of you being, being you the photographer . Get well and may you enjoy pushing the healing.

Me, too. Thank you.

200mp doesn't seem like an insane amount of pixels to me; it's just more firmly in 8x10 film territory than 150mp has been, thus giving a respective photographer the benefits of such. From a practical standpoint, I think cropping latitude is a notable advantage, especially in conjunction with printing, say, 44inches and larger on the short side. Being able to have a bit of stand-off distance from the subject, yet still have the capability to print large solves a host of issues - several issues being depth-of-field issues (e.g. Being able to shoot f8-f11 and still having a decent amount of "depth" to work with), and more composition freedom... what one may think is an optimum composition, may not be what's optimum to another party or when using a photo for another application.

From a practical standpoint (price notwithstanding), having 200-400mp (equates to run-of-the-mill 8x10 film detail in my mind), coupled with a larger sensor size (i.e. 54x40'ish) yields a lot of utility... stand off / cropping capability + wider view (per each given lens) in close confines when compared to the same with a 44x33mm sensor equipped camera. It will be interesting to see what new MF model comes down the pipe.

Whatever new camera debuts, I hope it can compete with Phase's IQ4's useful features. I'd highly encourage folks to read the IQ4's manual from cover to cover to get an idea of just how feature rich Phase's IQ4 really is. I don't think anything else comes close, even today. The price however...

Super CCD SR sensors as used in the S3 and S5 DSLRs, I think - I had an S5 back in the day. My recollection is that those were structurally distinctive, not just different toppings on an otherwise standard sensor. But perhaps that's incorrect. And anyway, that was many sensor generations ago.