David VS Goliath

Text and photos by Ugo Baldassarre
Translation: Giorgio Aprile

Those who have chosen the Micro 4/3 format got used to certain discussions, comparisons, connections that exist between the various technologies currently on the market, etc.
The large majority, for some time now, consider them boring and without real meaning.
However, for my professional curiosity, since I had never tried a digital format greater than 35mm, I enthusiastically accepted to try the monster, the Fujifilm GFX100, to compare it with my usual equipment and my way of photographing.

Let us be clear right away that the purpose of this article is certainly not to make a direct comparison between the two systems, rather between the two philosophies behind them. You will not find file comparisons, noise comparisons or other parameters that someone considers objective: I will tell you about my short experience of use with this object and what happened during a studio set in which I shot with both systems.

The GFX100 is a camera with a sensor size greater than that of the Full Frame. This difference introduces a new aspect ratio for the focal lengths that, in the specific case, must be multiplied by approximately 0.8 to obtain the value of correct equivalent focal length.
If on my OM-D E-M1 I have to use a 45mm to have an equivalent focal length of 90mm, on Fuji I will have to use a 110mm focal length to obtain the same shot.
This difference obviously affects also the management of the DOF that is even more extreme in this format (which in fact forces you to close the diaphragm more than usual, in short).
The format adopted for this camera therefore requires large bodies and lenses, in total contrast with the Micro 4/3 philosophy.

What intrigued me about this GFX was definitely the constructive approach adopted: unlike many other similar products (this format was certainly not born today), the GFX100 aims to have a “normal” approach to use and ergonomics, not the classic medium-format to be used on solid tripods or other solid stands.

The camera in fact looks very similar to a standard professional camera with a larger handle and battery grip integrated into the camera body for vertical shooting.
And here the first doubts started, at least for myself.
Even without disturbing its majesty E-M1X, the E-M1 MarkII + HLD 9 already has a significantly higher ergonomics. The GFX has the shape but not the weight of a comfortable camera in the hand: although it seems designed to be used comfortably, it is heavy but above all unbalanced.

The buttons were not comfortable to reach, I found it really not very ergonomic.

ATTENTION: my words should be read from the perspective of a user of another system. It is normal that my hands have now been shaped by the shape of the Olympus, however the feeling that not everything was arranged comfortably has remained etched in me without extenuating circumstances. For a regular mid-size user, the GFX will likely look like a glove.

The operating speed of the two systems was completely different. With my Em1 Mark2 I move quickly, change frame, I get closer, I move away from my subject. The camera is like not having it in your hand. I often shoot with one hand, using the other to hold something, give directions, modulate the light etc. With Fuji this was impossible: both hands must firmly hold the camera which, among other things, having to work with very closed diaphragms (see above) also requires adequate time / ISO.

OLYMPUS OM-D E-M1 MARK II

Even between shots, there is a very different technical time from what I am used to: it is not a “timing” that adapts to my way of photographing. I am not a burst shooter, especially when it comes to portraits, but when needed I shoot in rapid sequence 3-5 even 8 frames to try to catch every expressive nuance.

From the point of view of practical use, my Olympus system proved to be the winning weapon to get the shots I wanted. For ergonomics, speed of use, flexibility of movement, etc. there was no battle at all.

Obviously, and I emphasize the obvious, where I really expected miracles was in the file. With the difference in costs brought into play, the difference in technology, and everything else, it was reasonable to expect an abyss in terms of quality.
And here we return to the usual, eternal, long-standing, discourse of “but what is the quality of a digital file?”.

The GFX file as was expected has an unprecedented definition, which I had never experienced before. A practically unlimited possibility to enlarge and crop etc. while maintaining incredible sharpness: on this aspect, there is no competition.

FUJIFILM GFX100

HOWEVER, who needs this? When exactly does the need for this whole definition emerge?
I tried to think about my works, my customers, and my real needs: the answer was, NEVER.
Nevertheless, this obviously applies to me.

The resolution of the Zuiko Pro lenses is such as to allow all the crops I need without problems. If then from a whole length I require to have a perfect close up I change the lens, I do not choose to crop. Also for the colour balance, I far preferred the work done by my OMD (it must be said, however, that obviously, in this case I was working in my natural ecosystem).

The post-production work on the ORF files was incredibly simpler: especially in the portrait, this ultra-definition is something that must be managed and measured, without considering the hardware requests to manage the amount of data during both the processing phase and the storage.

On monitors, and especially on the web, there are no appreciable differences that justify the enormous difference of costs between the two systems.

The difference can be appreciated when printing but only in very specific cases, such as the need for large prints (but not as large as one might suppose), for large art publications to be watched at very close distance or making scientific shots or reproductions of works of art from which to extrapolate various crops.

Yet, even in this context, the Hi-res mode of the OMDs that reach 80MPX, allows very close performance.

In short, at the end of the story I understood that the GFX100 is in some ways an incredible camera, but definitely oriented, despite its features, to extremely selected users with specific needs.

Overall, I had the umpteenth demonstration of having chosen and found my ideal dimension and photographic format in the Micro 4/3.


Photos: Ugo Baldassarre – www.ugobaldassarre.com
Model: Route Omorodion

Thanx to UniversoFoto (www.universofoto.it) for the GFX100 and lenses tested.

Commenti all'articolo

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.

2 × 1 =