Free agent. X2D vs GFX

[MGrayson]

First I believe you need to be very honest with yourself about what moves / motivates you: toys or taking images. What is your main driving factor in this equatuin ? If it’s toys, by all means get the x2d and xcd glass, or even better the 150 Phase with Rodenstock lenses. But. if you are primarily interested in being an image creator, and your output medium doesn’t require 100-150 MP (basically you don’t print huge at gallery viewing standards), 35mm has everyhthing you need in terms of lens options, sensors, aesthetics and functionality to allow you to achieve any image you can dream of. And you should focus your money on photography, not gear: photography trips, studio rental, casting, make-up, hair, props, lights etc.
My 2 cents.

This is excellent advice in theory. In practice, though, there is an overlap between the equipment and the craft. Even a seasoned professional who CAN produce excellent work with any equipment still has likes and dislikes and workflow that suits them best. I've had cameras that jumped out of my hand, I hated holding them so much. I've always regretted overriding that feeling and going with the "head". Other cameras I pick up and they stick like glue.

It doesn't always work out perfectly over time, but for the sake of the craft, I believe it pays to get what you like, and not just what you need.

Matt

BTW, I remember vividly the first time I took a picture that I liked more than the camera taking it, which I think is your point. But even if the images are MORE important, that doesn't make the equipment unimportant.

The image in question. Leica Q

 

[nazdravanul]

This is excellent advice in theory. In practice, though, there is an overlap between the equipment and the craft. Even a seasoned professional who CAN produce excellent work with any equipment still has likes and dislikes and workflow that suits them best. I've had cameras that jumped out of my hand, I hated holding them so much. I've always regretted overriding that feeling and going with the "head". Other cameras I pick up and they stick like glue.

It doesn't always work out perfectly over time, but for the sake of the craft, I believe it pays to get what you like, and not just what you need.

Matt

BTW, I remember vividly the first time I took a picture that I liked more than the camera taking it, which I think is your point. But even if the images are MORE important, that that doesn't make the equipment unimportant.

The image in question. Leica Q

GAS is a botomless pit. Of course gear is important, but going back precisely to the OP’s question, the Nikon and Leica in 35mm he owns, allow him an endless array of image options. The only limit is his imagination / art.
Going to MF from where he is right now, with any of the options under scrutiny, is just a case of nicer toys, not better imaging tools - unless his output medium is huge gallery prints, in which case 100 MP or even better 150 MP make a serious difference.

 

[Ray Harrison]

Only the OP, I feel, is going to be able to distinguish between a useful tool to add to their chest and whether they consider something to be a toy. Perhaps there’s a fine line, I don’t know. I gave up on the rational approach quite a while back and don’t begrudge anyone their choices. Humans aren’t terribly rational anyway (if at all). For me, the choices I make with a given camera on what I shoot and how I go about it are different depending on the system I have in my hand (I have “manual” 35mm, “all-AF-whizbang” 35mm and MF gear). That’s part of the craft and the fun.

I think reasons like “because I like the colors of the Hassy images” or “because I want one” make just as much sense as anything else . I think the only fallacy to avoid is the “I’ll be a better photographer with <X>” which is never right. You’ll just potentially be a “different” one. I’m the only thing that stands in the way of me getting better.

 

[ThdeDude]

... finally proven to myself I can make a good picture and print. I'm ready to just stick with my iPhone 14 moving forward. ...

And if you have the "14 Pro" don't even bother with the "15 Pro", basically the same camera setup.

 

[ThdeDude]

... The glass inspires me like a paint brush to a painter. ... In cinema the mounts allow you to use ALL types of lenses on equal terms.

I am totally with you here. This was one advantage of "Large Format" (I am including here also 2 1/4" x 3 1/4"). Could use lenses from various manufactures of widely varying vintage on various cameras of widely varying vintage and even for a wide range of film formats.

Compatibility really stopped only with digital. Unfortunately, there never was a (practical) large format digital sensor, and probably never will be. The largest we got was a 645 format sized sensor but even here the digital sensor was a tat smaller than the 645 (film) format. Because of this “digital” LF type of lenses differ enough from “analog” (film) LF type of lenses that using one on the other generally (there are exceptions) made little sense.

 

[ThdeDude]

My printers went from an R3000 - 13x19 to a 4800 - 17x22, now I have a 7800 - 24x???. .... I'm ready to just stick with my iPhone 14 moving forward.

I have a 13inch printer (Epson 8550) and found my prints (12 1/8" x 15 4/8") of my 12MB iPhone images quite presentable. (Generally taken at base ISO.)

Assuming you mean the iPhone 14 Pro, have you ever printed a 48MB iPhone image, say, 17x22?

 

[tenmangu81]

I had digital cameras almost from their beginning, with a Canon 20D, then 5D II. Then I switched to digital Leica M, and to Hasselblad. But I don't print large prints. The only reasons for which I chose Hasselblad is : simplicity and colours. Frankly speaking, I don't need 50 Mpx (I have a X1D II), but I feel quite well with the Hasselblad. I am sure I won't make better shots, but I take pleasure to shoot with this camera. And it is the most important for the "amateur" I am. So, choose the camera you like and you feel good with.
I can't take pictures with my smartphone. I don't know how doing it....

 

[MGrayson]

I have a 13inch printer (Epson 8550) and found my prints (12 1/8" x 15 4/8") of my 12MB iPhone images quite presentable. (Generally taken at base ISO.)

Assuming you mean the iPhone 14 Pro, have you ever printed a 48MB iPhone image, say, 17x22?

This is 12MP from an iPhone 14 Pro. I have it on the wall printed on 17x22. It looks great!

Piano wrapped for hoisting.


The blue straps are the standard "I tie things down on flatbed trucks". The green ones are the "I hold 12,000 lbs and laugh at your puny concert grand".

Matt

 

[rdeloe]

This is 12MP from an iPhone 14 Pro. I have it on the wall printed on 17x22. It looks great!

Piano wrapped for hoisting.


The blue straps are the standard "I tie things down on flatbed trucks". The green ones are the "I hold 12,000 lbs and laugh at your puny concert grand".

Matt

I like this picture a lot Matt. There's a nice mystery happening here: is this a double-exposure, or is it a reflection? The graphics are strong and simple, and it works because of the colour.

 

[MGrayson]

I like this picture a lot Matt. There's a nice mystery happening here: is this a double-exposure, or is it a reflection? The graphics are strong and simple, and it works because of the colour.

Thanks Rob, much appreciated!

It's a single exposure, but there are many layers of wrapping - moving pads, clear plastic, and two kinds of straps. I was documenting the move with the phone, but this composition jumped out and grabbed me.

Matt

 

[ThdeDude]

This is 12MP from an iPhone 14 Pro. I have it on the wall printed on 17x22. It looks great!

Yes, I believe it. (Assume base ISO, and no crop.)

And smartphone cameras keep getting incrementally better every year. (The iPhone 15 Pro is a bit of an exception here.)

 

[glennedens]

Rob, you just haven't looked deep enough

I teach art making and it can get just as intense......

The watercolor artists argue the most: about papers (Arches versus ....), paints such as Windsor & Newton versus Sennelier versus ...., tubes versus blocks, and don't even get started on W&N Series 7 Brushes versus everything else (those vintage Series 7 brushes can now cost as much as a nice used lens, the new ones are less expensive but not as nice).

Acrylics? No problem are we talking about Liquitex (mass market), Golden (my favorite) or an exotic like Chroma Atelier Interactive Artists' Acrylics? Which mediums, overcoats and again papers or canvas, hand stretched or purchased, boards?

Oils, gets even worse, and brushes rear their head again There are even books about Turner's papers.

Kind regards, Glenn

You are revealing the forbidden knowledge! Apostate!

You're not wrong though. For people who like shopping and buying new things, photography is the gift that keeps on giving. There are so many bits and bobs and toys and trinkets one can buy.

When the GAS topic came up before on some other forum, some previous time, I speculated that surely other visual artists don't have this problem. I couldn't imagine web sites where people who paint fight over which brand of brushes is the best, with dedicated forums for brush brands. Someone who actually knows the painting community chimed in to say that painters do in fact obsess about gear too. But it has to be a matter of degree. I don't see how painting can come close to being in photography's league when it comes to gear and GAS.

I used to enjoy being on the Large Format Photography Forum because it was extremely difficult to squabble about gear. With exceptions like companies such as Intrepid, nobody was making new cameras, and certainly nobody was making new large format lenses. Whenever a newbie would ask the inevitable "Which lens is best?" question, some experienced person would take their turn and say, "Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikkor -- they're re all fine. You won't be able to tell the difference. Just pick one and get shooting".

Unfortunately, there's endless new stuff to shop for, buy and obsess about in digital photography. Ask me how I know. Thankfully, I really, truly, honestly -- scout's honour -- believe I have what I need and can't do much better without spending a huge amount of money. When I get the itch, I try to ground myself by remembering that I don't need better equipment, I need better ideas. Repeat after me....

 

[rdeloe]

Rob, you just haven't looked deep enough

I teach art making and it can get just as intense......

The watercolor artists argue the most: about papers (Arches versus ....), paints such as Windsor & Newton versus Sennelier versus ...., tubes versus blocks, and don't even get started on W&N Series 7 Brushes versus everything else (those vintage Series 7 brushes can now cost as much as a nice used lens, the new ones are less expensive but not as nice).

Acrylics? No problem are we talking about Liquitex (mass market), Golden (my favorite) or an exotic like Chroma Atelier Interactive Artists' Acrylics? Which mediums, overcoats and again papers or canvas, hand stretched or purchased, boards?

Oils, gets even worse, and brushes rear their head again There are even books about Turner's papers.

Kind regards, Glenn

Thanks for the chuckle Glenn, and for the update from the world of painting! I didn't keep the other response I received from a photographer who is also part of the painting world, but from memory it was indistinguishable in the main from your post.

I still think there's a difference in degree, if not in kind. I could well be wrong, but do painters have web sites to discuss gear, where there are separate forums for the Windsor & Newton people versus the Sennelier people? I hope they are more sensible about that than us photographers, who endlessly subdivide ourselves into little camps around technologies.

 

[hcubell]

One thing I know is that none of the artists need a 500 page manual on how to "program" the options for using their brushes, paints and canvases before they can paint.

 

[jduncan]

I don’t own a medium format digital camera. I have some full frame (Z9, Leica M11M, film cameras). I think the X2D colors look fantastic. I love the build factor and simplicity. I stalled on purchasing to see what Fuji would do (gave up on Leica years ago, had several S systems). I also get a discount on all things Fuji so that’s an influence. But now they’re both out, side by side. I handled both and well, they’re so different. I only do stills. Environmental portraits of family, friends. Like a Leica M approach but with auto focus. I love my Z9 and the ability to lock onto an eye and focus on composition. So much so that I rarely use my Leica in comparison. Blank slate, for glass options, color manipulation of raw files, usability which way are you all leaning. I feel like if I go Fuji it could almost replace my Z and I would just need something small like my Leica or some smaller FF camera for portability. I feel like the X2D could be a companion like my Leica and I would keep my Z or the like for speed. Just a hobbyist.

The Fuji system is superior unless you need Flash. Also, the Fuji system is more likely to stay for us, even more so if the usual subjects throw Earth into a 1930s-style recession with their murderous and relentless quest to control others. As a second body for pleasure and creative refresh, the X2D is as beautiful as a modern camera can get, has unusual lenses with a unique look, files are fantastic out of the box and it's overall lovely.

I will suggest taking into account a mint X1D II it won't focus as the newer one does (even the X2D is primitive: it does not do basic tracking properly) but it will be less expensive and has built in GPS.

Best regards,

 

[nazdravanul]

The Fuji system is superior unless you need Flash.

I shoot both the x2d and the GFX 100 (original) and I strongly disagree with your statement! The XCD lenses are definitely superior to Fuji's GF primes - only the GF 110, GF 250 and the new TS lenses are unique, but I still shoot my 120 XCD instead of the GF 110 whenever I get the chance, because the overall IQ (lens + camera + PP) for stills of the Hassy is superior. Except portraits, of course, where the GF 110 and the (rudimentary) eye-AF of the Fuji does make a difference.
I've owned my GFX100 since 2019, as my main camera, and I still have problems with locking up exposure accidentally and having to dig into the menu to figure out how to unlock it, in the middle of a complicated location, sometimes - the Hassy menu just works, stress free, every single time. I hate focus bracketing on the Fuji, I actually use it on the Hassy.
Oh, and I only shoot MF because I do 180cm x 120cm gallery prints (minimum size, it can also double) and I need the 100 MP (would have loved the 150 MPs, but cannot really afford it). Otherwise I would definitely be a 35mm shooter.
If Fuji hadn't shown up with their TS lenses, I would have most probably ended up just with the Hassy. But I've been waiting for that 30mm TS since ... forever

 

[MGrayson]

After much consideration, I've decided that the correct solution is X2D for everything 90mm and wider, Leica S3 for the 100/2 and 120/2.5 Macro, and Fuji GFX for everything longer (100-200 zoom and 250/4) I really don't like the handling of the XCD 120 and 135. Heavy, unbalanced, and slow to focus.

Hmmm... there has to be a reason for a Phase One XT ... let me think.

Matt

 

[nazdravanul]

After much consideration, I've decided that the correct solution is X2D for everything 90mm and wider, Leica S3 for the 100/2 and 120/2.5 Macro, and Fuji GFX for everything longer (100-200 zoom and 250/4) I really don't like the handling of the XCD 120 and 135. Heavy, unbalanced, and slow to focus.

Hmmm... there has to be a reason for a Phase One XT ... let me think.

Matt

Nice one, factoring the SL into the equation. As for the XT, I would buy it for a portable 150 MP 32mm Rodenstock shift solution in a heartbeat … if someone would pay millions for my prints

 

[areallygrumpyoldsod]

I don’t own a medium format digital camera. I have some full frame (Z9, Leica M11M, film cameras). I think the X2D colors look fantastic. I love the build factor and simplicity. I stalled on purchasing to see what Fuji would do (gave up on Leica years ago, had several S systems). I also get a discount on all things Fuji so that’s an influence. But now they’re both out, side by side. I handled both and well, they’re so different. I only do stills. Environmental portraits of family, friends. Like a Leica M approach but with auto focus. I love my Z9 and the ability to lock onto an eye and focus on composition. So much so that I rarely use my Leica in comparison. Blank slate, for glass options, color manipulation of raw files, usability which way are you all leaning. I feel like if I go Fuji it could almost replace my Z and I would just need something small like my Leica or some smaller FF camera for portability. I feel like the X2D could be a companion like my Leica and I would keep my Z or the like for speed. Just a hobbyist.

The real question is why buy into a new system? What does your current gear prevent you from achieving that a body with a 100mp 16-bit sensor that is slow to use would give you? The Z9 for action and a lot more; the Leica for those days you fancy wearing at beret or your goatee needs waxing oh and you want to shoot b&w with a sensor that does not have a Bayer filter AND film (I have faint recollections of film).
I shoot Z8/Z9 and X2D and love them both. Yes the X2D colours and images are great - but the lack of continuous auto-focus is a limitation that the GFX does not face. Only you can judge if you need continuous-AF or not. The GFX is in no means a camera for fast action but some do use it for that. The X2D has a much high flash sync speed when used with XCD lenses that the GFX or Z9 if that matters.

 

[JeffK]

Nikon Zf. It's the iMac of full frame.