pmu
Well-known
Anyone compared M10 and Fuji GFX 50R when Fuji is in 30 mpix FF crop mode? Please share your experiences what are the differences in image quality and how easy / difficult is it to use the Fuji + Leica M lens -combo compared to M10.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
pmu
Well-known
Am I really the only one who thought of using GFX in "full frame" format with Leica glass? 
I am thinking that it might be hard to find someone who has both... and if they have both, those that would use the GFX in crop mode instead of the M10 would be rare I think.
DwF
Well-known
I was interested in the GFX having handled it at a camera event in Seattle a year or so ago. I went back to spend more time with it a second time and realized that while it handled reasonably well, it felt a bit cumbersome. I did try it with the newer 50mm f 3.5 (the "pancake" lens) and found it was still quite large and unwieldy for me as a camera I would regularly carry. I chose to go to the M10 after that haven't looked back. the quality of images from the new M is really satisfying.
raid
Dad Photographer
The size of the M10 is a big plus for this M camera. If the SL were the size of the M10, I would next buy an SL or SL2.
How bulky is the GFX?
How bulky is the GFX?
arseniii
Well-known
Common sense tells me GFX crop will be better. You should get a better resolution and still have the MF look (even with the crop). I own neither but would go for Fuji if IQ is my goal. Also, there are adapters for M-glass to Fujifilm GF mount on eBay. They are a bit expensive however (compared to other adaptors)
pmu
Well-known
I personally do have the GFX 50R. I'm thinking to get 50mm Leica glass to it. Originally, I wanted to have M Leica, but couldn't justify the cost. I absolutely love Fuji's image quality and while it's way larger than M Leica, I find the size very comfortable. It's the lenses that make it large as DSLR.
I find the idea of using a tiny 50/2 M lens and 30 mpix 35mm crop resolution very interesting. In the link, the user didn't like the combo at all, but he was not using the 35mm FF crop and he also says that the combination looks weird. I think it looks great!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/measuringlight.com/2019/07/30/fuji-gfx-with-leica-m-lens/amp/
I am hoping the combo would give me the "Leica feel"...with at least equal image quality to M10. Fuji does not have rangefinder, but at least the EVF is fine.
I find the idea of using a tiny 50/2 M lens and 30 mpix 35mm crop resolution very interesting. In the link, the user didn't like the combo at all, but he was not using the 35mm FF crop and he also says that the combination looks weird. I think it looks great!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/measuringlight.com/2019/07/30/fuji-gfx-with-leica-m-lens/amp/
I am hoping the combo would give me the "Leica feel"...with at least equal image quality to M10. Fuji does not have rangefinder, but at least the EVF is fine.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I was reading at LUF how one person came from Fuji dMF camera with Leica lenses to M10. And liked M10 files more.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Fuji sensor cropped to 24x36 nets 60% of the pixel resolution, or about 31 Mpixel, compared to the M10 @ 24 Mpixel. While this is slightly more resolution, it's a measurable, not perceivable, resolution difference for the most part. The primary advantage for doing this would be to get the GFX50R 16bit output rather than the M10 14bit output in your raw files.
The cost of doing this is that the GFX50R body is substantially larger and heavier than the Leica M10 (see photos attached). And of course how well the Leica lenses will cover the full Fuji format (rather than just the cropped portion of it) depends quite a lot on the lens. Also, you will not have Leica's lens profiles so correcting variations in sensor to lens optical matches will be up to you in post processing.
I use my Leica M and R lenses with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c camera, alongside native Hasselblad XCD and adapted Hasselblad V system lenses. Some of the Leica lenses perform very well, others not so well. The Hasselblad X and V lenses outperform the Leica lenses on this camera (yes, even cropped to the 24x36mm format) consistently. However, I have some lens options for specific uses (macro, tabletop, etc) using mostly the R lenses that are compelling enough such that I use them, and the Voigtländer 10mm lens on the 907x—even cropped severely to eliminate the hard vignetting—both performs well enough and provides such a radically enormous field of view that it's fun to work with now and then instead of the XCD 21mm, despite the far superior technical performance of the XCD lens.
The Fuji GFX50R would give a use experience a little closer to the M10 than my setup due to its more similar form factor and EVF, and is not constrained to just an electronic shutter like the Hasselblad is. But whether the resulting workflow and quality output is satisfactory for your uses is something that only you as a user could evaluate. If you already own a good range of Leica lenses, and really want a GFX50R, well, for the cost of an adapter you can experiment and discover what works well and what does not. But I wouldn't buy a GFX50R and presume that I was going to get what the camera can provide as its best performance unless I also budgeted to buy at least one or two native lenses made for it.
G
The cost of doing this is that the GFX50R body is substantially larger and heavier than the Leica M10 (see photos attached). And of course how well the Leica lenses will cover the full Fuji format (rather than just the cropped portion of it) depends quite a lot on the lens. Also, you will not have Leica's lens profiles so correcting variations in sensor to lens optical matches will be up to you in post processing.
I use my Leica M and R lenses with the Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c camera, alongside native Hasselblad XCD and adapted Hasselblad V system lenses. Some of the Leica lenses perform very well, others not so well. The Hasselblad X and V lenses outperform the Leica lenses on this camera (yes, even cropped to the 24x36mm format) consistently. However, I have some lens options for specific uses (macro, tabletop, etc) using mostly the R lenses that are compelling enough such that I use them, and the Voigtländer 10mm lens on the 907x—even cropped severely to eliminate the hard vignetting—both performs well enough and provides such a radically enormous field of view that it's fun to work with now and then instead of the XCD 21mm, despite the far superior technical performance of the XCD lens.
The Fuji GFX50R would give a use experience a little closer to the M10 than my setup due to its more similar form factor and EVF, and is not constrained to just an electronic shutter like the Hasselblad is. But whether the resulting workflow and quality output is satisfactory for your uses is something that only you as a user could evaluate. If you already own a good range of Leica lenses, and really want a GFX50R, well, for the cost of an adapter you can experiment and discover what works well and what does not. But I wouldn't buy a GFX50R and presume that I was going to get what the camera can provide as its best performance unless I also budgeted to buy at least one or two native lenses made for it.
G
Attachments
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for the size comparison here.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is similar to how I feel about getting versus not getting a Leica SL2. Each SL lens can set you back $5000+.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
When I had the SL, I had both the 24-90 and 90-280 lenses for it. Quite a lot of money! What I used on the SL the vast majority of the time was a small selection of my favorite R system prime lenses. (Note that the current prime lenses for the SL hadn't even come out yet, other than the 50mm.) Even though even the zoom lenses were at least the equal of those R system lenses (and usually superior performers), the SL series zooms' imaging was not wholly, noticeably, indefatigably superior to what the Leica R prime lenses could produce.
However, the difference between using the SL with its native lenses and using the Leica R and M lenses is much smaller than using, say, a Hasselblad 907x with a native XCD 45P lens vs a Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 lens.
First off, by definition, "getting the most out of a particular camera and sensor" is impossible if you are constrained to not using the full format of that camera's sensor. Even though I can use many of my Leica R and M lenses on the CFVII 50c sensor, most of them do exhibit some vignetting and corner edge degradation when used on the full 33x44 mm format frame, more so than when using the same lenses on any 24x36mm format.
The lack of lens profiling for the Leica lenses on the Hasselblad sensor also cuts back on the notion of "getting the most" out of it. Hasselblad supplies in Phocus (and through Adobe in Lightroom Classic) lens profiles for ALL the XCD lenses that corrects and optically matches the lens performance for the digital back's sensor perfectly. Leica's factory lens profiles are only available in Leica cameras (the ones available from Adobe are often, in my experience, overdone in various ways which makes me suspect they're NOT the same at all). Thus you have a situation that even on the cropped format of the larger sensor, you cannot fully optimize the results as well as Leica has for their own camera sensors.
On the 907x, I can use my old V system lenses. These cover a still larger format than the 33x44mm sensor, and while there are no lens profiles available for them, it's less a concern because the smaller format means you are capturing using primarily the better, central 2/3 of the lens image circle, nowhere near the zone of edge degradation. And you also know that for the most part, like Leica lenses, the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses are top notch performers even on the larger 56x56 format they were designed for.
The result of these things is that with the Leica SL, just like with the Leica CL, I could/can use Leica M and R lenses exclusively and feel confident that I am getting the most the camera and sensor can offer, if not necessarily the most that the complete set of camera/sensor and native lenses can. So while the native SL lenses can provide some additional increment of performance, the increment is mostly fairly small in practical terms and particular imaging/rendering qualities (and the intent/execution by the photographer) will outweigh the native lens superiority in many cases. I do this today with the CL and my remaining M and R lens kit: thus far, I see no real reason to re-invest in expensive SL or TL series lenses.
With the 907x, I know for a fact that I need the camera/sensor AND the XCD lenses in order to achieve the most that the body can produce, and that the V system lenses will also do an outstanding job—better than nearly anything else other than H system lenses—despite lacking profiling. And I know for a fact that the Leica lenses cannot match their performance, again despite the fact that they can produce some extremely excellent results.
I would not have bought the 907x if I could not also plan to purchase at least a couple of XCD lenses or if I didn't have already have some V system lenses to work with; I would not be satisfied. I know for a fact (having done it) that I can do this with the SL or CL utilizing only what I already have in M and R lenses.
G
ASA 32
Well-known
There are several examples of GFX 50R images shot with Leica glass on the Fuji X Forum. There is a section for images shot with the GFX 50R, and in the later pages of that section, pages 25 and on, are several examples of images made with Leica M lenses, although it's not clear if they were done using the crop resolution.
pmu
Well-known
I used the search function, browsed all the Fuji forums etc. and couldn't find almost anything...
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you very much for your insights to the issue of using native lenses, Godfrey.
Peter_S
Peter_S
I stood in front of a similar decision, but M Monochrom vs GFX for B/W work.
I think larger considerations here besides image quality are
a) preferred image ration. 3:4 is different from 3:2. That drew me towards the Fuji system - less cropping when going to 6:7.
b) number of existing M glass
c) rangefinder focussing.
I ended up with the M Monochrom, despite not being a huge fan of 3:2 by default. M lenses, size and rangefinder focusing weighted heavier - and an inability in the longer run to purchase Fuji lenses to get all out of the system. (I kept a film Bessa III to cover the 6:7 work - I was unwilling to sell that to buy into the GFX system).
I think larger considerations here besides image quality are
a) preferred image ration. 3:4 is different from 3:2. That drew me towards the Fuji system - less cropping when going to 6:7.
b) number of existing M glass
c) rangefinder focussing.
I ended up with the M Monochrom, despite not being a huge fan of 3:2 by default. M lenses, size and rangefinder focusing weighted heavier - and an inability in the longer run to purchase Fuji lenses to get all out of the system. (I kept a film Bessa III to cover the 6:7 work - I was unwilling to sell that to buy into the GFX system).
Ste_S
Well-known
https://www.*****************/threads/gfx50r-image-thread.87427/page-10
From page 10 onwards
Edit- It appears RFF doesn't allow links to the Fuji X forum. GFX 50R image thread, page 10 onwards.
shawn
Veteran
If the adapted lens can’t cover the whole sensor a 35mm lens should be able to do 1x1 using the full height of the sensor.
Shawn
Shawn