In my eyes, pixelshift seem to promise more than it can hold water. (I do not know which camera mode from various brands truly holds does this well). Most do not ! Most cameras tests I have seen (Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Olympus / OM System) about Pixelshift outputs - have left me underwhelmed. In my opinion, not worth the hassle, really.

Sad to say.

I mean it sound so good, right ?

The real thing (native sensor output) still bring the most convincing results - without bias - because you simply see it straight at the monitor; details get pin sharp. It always gives seem to give it an edge over pixelshift gimmicks.

It depends on what you use an image for

Ultimately, it all depends on what you are going to do with the final digital output from a negative. The Olympus OM-1 80 MP pixelshift + macro lens stopped down to ƒ6.3 - give nice results that are good enough for large images.

• I would say, that the Pixelshift lies between the output of a native Macro lens + native sensor output | and the output from of a flatbed scanned mediumformat negative.

• When you make the image a bit smaller, that has however a positive sharpening effect, where you can't can't discern any differences anymore.

• Fine grained, very sharp BW negatives with Pixelshift - will likely be less sharp compared to using macro lens + native sensor out put !!

• Higher ISO films on the other hand, as well color negatives barely show any difference - so yes, you could use Pixelshift, if you already have a camera with that feature + macro lens at home. I mean, why not.

For high quality resolution

In order to obtain pin sharp details from 6x7 negatives - I would say, a native sensor output of 50 MP + native macro lens = gives the best results. And if your camera is a Fujifilm GFX 100... well, that will top all other options (with the right macro lens, and aperture setting), with truly more than plenty of resolution exceeding that of the original 6x7 negative.

50 MP is however great in terms of sharpness for 6x7 negatives. Tolerating sharpening without looking weird in the micro details. It also tolerates better post processing without that strange weird pattern appear (like it sometimes does with pixelshift images).

In a week

I am looking forward to test the TTArtisan 100/2.8 2x Macro lens with the Fujifilm GFX camera in order to "scan" 6x7 negatives. I have ordered it now, with native Fujifilm GFX mount. Therefore, it will only fit to Fujifilm GFX cameras.

Curious...

I am also curious if it can act like a 100 mm (80mm) portrait lens in the photo studio ? How it stacks up with my other Pentax 6x7 and Mamiya RZ67 lenses.

There, i have usually used longer lenses (150-210mm), such as the Mamiya APO Sekor Z 210 mm lens. Which is, to say the least, simply formidable already at wide open aperture ƒ4.5 !

One I have not yet used in the studio, is the Canon EF 200/2 L IS lens. And the Sigma 105mm ƒ1.4 ART lens.

I guess, that when I work at home with studio flashes - the really bright lenses are not a priority to me. There is plenty of flash light available, and I stop down lenses to aperture ƒ5.6 or so. At that aperture ƒ5.6 - 8, pretty much all mediumformat lenses shine; showing very fine details in a face.

So, it doesn't really matter which lens I use.

Where does the TTArtisan 100/2.8 Macro fit in ?

It is basically for me a macro lens, which is flexible over a large range. And since it doesn't vignette from infinity (?) down to 1x Macro (1:1), i can use it natively with the Fujifilm GFX camera. To have a good Macro lens, is of course nice for all the job and experiments which require close distances.

Sure is that the lens will vignette at 2x macro - but that I can iron out later in Photoshop. I mean for the few times when I go that extreme close down to 2x macro. Most often I do not.

Nevertheless - at this point - it is all theory - until I do practical testing. I assume that the lens is sharp and renders things well, then it will be a very welcome addition.

If not... it goes back.