One camera, one lens (not cheap).

Fujifilm gfx 50r + 63/2.8 or Sony A7 R iii + 50/1.4.

 

Which is better for life solid camera (portraits and landscapes mostly)?

 

For Sony: many, many lenses, good choice.

 

For Fujifilm - ?

A "normal" lens is a good choice for landscapes, but not necessarily for portraits. What is a "portrait" - headshot, head and shoulders, environmental? In any case you should be at about 6 feet from the subject to get flattering perspective. You choose the lens to fit the application.

 

You have a much wider range of choices with a Sony A7Riii than the Fuji. It's also smaller, lighter, and has comparable image quality. This article describes the pros and cons of medium format, from a very practical point of view.

 

Video: Shooting landscapes on the Fujifilm GFX 50R with Nigel Danson

The Fuji GFX system has more room to grow - there is already a 100Mpx body. OTOH, a lot of people are very happy with 24Mpx. There are other factors, of course, so a lot of research and testing might be a good idea.

This article describes the pros and cons of medium format, from a very practical point of view.

Can he make his large prints using panorama stitching with Sony? I think, for landscapes - yes.

What is a "portrait" - headshot, head and shoulders, environmental?

Mostly head and shoulders and enviromental.

Examining samples (portraits) taken with 63 mm I see how sterile and lifeless it is. Pentax 75/2.8 renders much better. But I am in doubt that Pentax will continue the line and be in business in 3-6 years from now.

The Fuji GFX system has more room to grow...

 

- Unlikely that it will though.

 

The barely-bigger-than-FF sensor means that it needs dedicated lenses, and only Fuji are ever likely to make those.

 

If sales aren't good - and the drop in price would seem to indicate they're not - then Fuji will drop this like a hot stone.

 

Another dead-end system like the Leica S2, IMO.

 

Until, and unless 'medium format' sensors get to genuinely put a meaningful size differential between themselves and 24x36mm, they'll remain a rapidly diminishing niche market. With cameras and systems that bloom and wither in the space of a few months.

One point - I do like stabilized sensors. With Sony I can take sharp hand held photos at 1/8 second.

And with camera on tripod, stabilized option helps also (you press the button on camera instead using a remote).

With 50 Mp Fuji I need 1/250 for 63 mm f 2.8 to avoid micro-shake?

Each time I make myself like Fuji I see this stuff and I think "such uninspiring people's portraits" :confused: Looks like APS.

Each time I make myself like Fuji I see this stuff and I think "such uninspiring people's portraits" :confused: Looks like APS.

It is not camera, it's photographer.

One point - I do like stabilized sensors. With Sony I can take sharp hand held photos at 1/8 second.

And with camera on tripod, stabilized option helps also (you press the button on camera instead using a remote).

With 50 Mp Fuji I need 1/250 for 63 mm f 2.8 to avoid micro-shake?

With stabilized sensor at 1/8, you definitely will have micro-shake.

Why not Sony a7RIII and the FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS? This lens will match the IQ of the 50mm (shoot in RAW and correct the small lens issues in RAW conversion) and it'll be tons better for landscape and portrait. You'll have both optical and in-body stabilization. It's an incredibly versatile lens and the IQ is excellent.

 

Lower Manhattan - From Our Balcony by David Stephens, on Flickr

It is not camera, it's photographer.

Maybe, but 63 mm is somewhat simple and sterile with little bokeh, just observation.

With stabilized sensor at 1/8, you definitely will have micro-shake.

Sometimes not noticeble...at 1/15 even better, but without a stabilizer, with Fuji I must shoot at 1/200.

 

Why not Sony 24-105? I haven't examined it yet, but Canon 24-105L is worse than Sigma Art 50 mm.

One zoom shook me - Canon R 28-70/2.0 L - I have never seen that level of quality and rendering!!! Too costly for me. and Canon has no stabilization. But it is the best zoom ever.

...

 

Why not Sony 24-105? I haven't examined it yet, but Canon 24-105L is worse than Sigma Art 50 mm. ...

 

Look here:

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality

 

At 50mm and f/8, uncorrected, they're hard to distinguish. Apply digital lens correction in RAW conversion and you're unlikely to see any difference at all. Also, the 50mm truly sucks at 24mm and 105mm. Long ago, we all, including me, hung an albatross around our necks and shot only with 50mm. A few of us had 35mm and 200mm, but that was rare. Zooms were costly and truly sucked, in general. I wouldn't think of shooting with only a 50mm today.

 

You don't seem to be dead set against zooms, so, you owe it to yourself to check out the FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS.

Mostly head and shoulders and enviromental.

Examining samples (portraits) taken with 63 mm I see how sterile and lifeless it is. Pentax 75/2.8 renders much better. But I am in doubt that Pentax will continue the line and be in business in 3-6 years from now.

 

That is two very different type of portrature, calling for different lenses, or at least distances from the subject.

H&S is up close and tight. I might use a 105 for this.

Environmental, is wide, capturing the stuff around the subject. I might use a 50 or 35 for this.

 

If you want this kind of versatility, you are looking at a zoom.

That is two very different type of portrature, calling for different lenses, or at least distances from the subject.

H&S is up close and tight. I might use a 105 for this.

Environmental, is wide, capturing the stuff around the subject. I might use a 50 or 35 for this.

 

If you want this kind of versatility, you are looking at a zoom.

Then I have to have 50 and 85 mm (2 lenses). Letting more space with 85 I can crop slightly to reduce angle of view to get a tighter shot (100 mm angle of view).

But then I have to have 42 Mp camera to crop down to 32-36 Mp and still have plenty of resolution.

 

If you want this kind of versatility, you are looking at a zoom.

I look for ability of watery, oily blur (bokeh) for art photography, so I don't look for a zoom (except one 28-70 which I mentioned earlier).

That is two very different type of portrature, calling for different lenses, or at least distances from the subject.

H&S is up close and tight. I might use a 105 for this.

This girl from Smolensk uses a cheap 50 mm on FF camera for her portraits. Not that bad, really? Sometimes breakinig the rules and dogmas by good hands leads to good result.

As for wide angles (24, 20, etc) I need them very seldom. In a tight hotel room maybe... in a hall... I don't use them cause I don't much love their aesthetics and distortions.

Pentax K-1 mk2 and their big new Pentax 50mm f/1.4 sdm aw hd d fa* (in a class of Tokina Opera or Milvus optically) would be a perfect combo for me. But where will Pentax be in 3-6 years?

Sony will stay long.

Edited January 21, 2019 by ruslan

This girl from Smolensk uses a cheap 50 mm on FF camera for her portraits. Not that bad, really? Sometimes breakinig the rules and dogmas by good hands leads to good result.

As for wide angles (24, 20, etc) I need them very seldom. In a tight hotel room maybe... in a hall... I don't use them cause I don't much love their aesthetics and distortions.

 

You match the shooting requirement to the lens.

Or you stand at the appropriate distance, and crop into the image to get the tighter final image.

 

20 and 24 are absolutely too wide for general portrature.

However, when you are in a room shooting a group shot, and your back is literally up against the wall, your only choice is a wider lens.

A 35 is easier to control.

Then I have to have 50 and 85 mm (2 lenses). Letting more space with 85 I can crop slightly to reduce angle of view to get a tighter shot (100 mm angle of view).

But then I have to have 42 Mp camera to crop down to 32-36 Mp and still have plenty of resolution.

 

I look for ability of watery, oily blur (bokeh) for art photography, so I don't look for a zoom (except one 28-70 which I mentioned earlier).

 

I recommend a 35 + 85 (or 105).

If you have a 50, there will be times when you are shooting an environmental portrait in a home, and your back will be up against the wall, and you cannot back up any more.

 

Crop down to 32-36 MP ???

How big a print are you planning to make?

I recommend a 35 + 85 (or 105).

Maybe you are right.

Sigma Art 35 + Art 105/1.4 (very huge, costly but... plenty of bokeh) may be a great combo. The 105 is heavy to carry, though.

 

How big a print are you planning to make?

Just to make a reserve for the future. A2 size (occasionally, seldom, i.e.)

It is all about viewing a photograph from a reasonable viewing distance regardless of sensor size. Okay, some folk like looking to the left of a photo, or the right, or perhaps the middle .Pixel peeps.

 

Sadly, the actual photograph is ignored as pixels are being counted.

 

You can spend all the coin you want on gear, but will it make you a more creative photographer? I very much doubt it : really, it is about about buying new toys and those gold coins burning holes in pockets.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Allen Herbert

You can spend all the coin you want on gear, but will it make you a more creative photographer? I very much doubt it : really, it is about about buying new toys and those gold coins burning holes in pockets.

It makes sense I understand you cause I could live with humble equipment ;) and use it at 110% :)

...

 

Just to make a reserve for the future. A2 size (occasionally, seldom, i.e.)

 

You won't need the R for that. Any camera mentioned on this thread can handle that. Then, just make sure you're happy with dynamic range.

Years ago I began my photography hobby with one camera and one lens. It was an Yahsica Eclectro X body with a 50mm lens. I learned much by using just one lens, thus the 50mm lens has always had a special connection for me. Today's digital cameras this lens is now the 25/1.7 lens or a 35/2 lens. I appreciate the fact these prime lens force you to walk around and see things from all different angles.

GR

- Unlikely that it will though.

 

The barely-bigger-than-FF sensor means that it needs dedicated lenses, and only Fuji are ever likely to make those.

 

If sales aren't good - and the drop in price would seem to indicate they're not - then Fuji will drop this like a hot stone.

 

Another dead-end system like the Leica S2, IMO.

 

Until, and unless 'medium format' sensors get to genuinely put a meaningful size differential between themselves and 24x36mm, they'll remain a rapidly diminishing niche market. With cameras and systems that bloom and wither in the space of a few months.

 

A bit wide of the mark. Fuji never intended their "big" sensor sytem to sell in volume even close to their APS-C lines. They're pricier as a result. Promo pricing isn't a death watch with Fuji products.