Fuji Medium Format Digital Cameras

I'm not sure if this is the right forum but the Medium Format forum seems to be focused on film versions. I'm considering one of the Fuji Medium formats Like the GFX 50R or the GFX 100S or 50S. Is anybody here using one of these cameras and do you have any thoughts on them? Image quality and ease of use in the field. I've been looking at some of the city scapes I've been taking and thinking that some of these photos would like nice on a larger sensor camera. Any thoughts or recommendations?

If you are going to get one I'd get the 100MP version. You can match the 50 MP with a Sony/Canon/Nikon mirrorless 35mm format. Yes, you won't have the advantage of "the mini-MF look", but less depth of field and slower lenses are rarely an advantage on city streets. Also the regular FF cameras have tons of lenses available (particarly native Sony FE lenses) and vintage stuff, whereas the Fuji is lmited to its own system, although presumably you could fit other MF lenses on it. The return on investment is rather poor with these cameras IMO, but on the other hand if you would be happy with a 1 or 2 lens system, then it is rather attractive if you have the funds.

... I'm considering one of the Fuji Medium formats Like the GFX 50R or the GFX 100S or 50S. Is anybody here using one of these cameras and do you have any thoughts on them? Image quality and ease of use in the field. ... Any thoughts or recommendations?

I have a friend who has the GFX100, which he upgraded from the GFX50R. If I were to enter the Fuji medium format system, I'd be leaning to the GFX50R II. The 100S is much larger and heavier (and far more expensive) with its vertical grip - and 50MP is plenty of resolution. The 50R II has IBIS - the other two 50MP options do not - and its price-point makes it quite compelling.

 

The one thing you can say about the GFX100 is that the VF resolution is unsurpassable (nearly twice that of any of the other GFX alternatives).

It's true that a D850 will give you most of a GFX 50R, but it isn't that simple.

 

Here is a comparison between a Leica S2 and a Nikon D800E (note that they are almost the same size!). You tell me whether the Leica is worth the extra money. Keep in mind that the S lenses, as amazing as they are, are not as good as the SL lenses. And the F lenses had to be chosen carefully, whereas you don't need to wonder which S lenses are the better ones:

 

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

 

BTW, the X1D was, and maybe still is, the best low light camera you can buy. The sensor is pretty much the same as on the GFX 50R. Have a look at this comparison between the SL2 and the X1D, and you decide which system offers better image quality:

 

 

Conclusion: The 50Mpx medium format cameras are usually better, but it depends on what you are using them for, and what your budget is. It is arguably a better idea to have two GFX 50 bodies over one GFX 100 body.

 

Anyway, let us know what you think and what you end up buying, and why. I'm also investigating medium format. I'm not sure whether to go for a Leica or Fuji system. The Hasselblad X1D is great too, of course. I will probably shoot 120 film as well, but that is a different discussion. I have already excluded the modular systems such as Phase One and Hasselblad H, as they are too fussy. The Pentax 645Z is perhaps the best bargain in medium format. As much as I like Sony cameras, I would avoid the A7R IV. We are very spoiled these days, I think!

I have a friend who has the GFX100, which he upgraded from the GFX50R. If I were to enter the Fuji medium format system, I'd be leaning to the GFX50R II. The 100S is much larger and heavier (and far more expensive) with its vertical grip - and 50MP is plenty of resolution. The 50R II has IBIS - the other two 50MP options do not - and its price-point makes it quite compelling.

 

Bill, from what I've seen just nosing around the web is the newer GFX 100s Is much more compact then the GFX 100 which is much bigger with the vertical grip. The 100S is about a $1000 USD more then the 50R whereas the GFX 100 is several thousand dollars more. I didn't realize there was a GFX 50 R and 50 RII I will check it out. I'm really interested in urban landscape like I did a lot of in Alaska last month and looking at my photos, though I like a lot of them, it struck me that medium format would really be good for that type of photography. I used to use a Mamiya 7 for that stuff and still have it, but I'm finding the whole cycle of working with the film is too expensive and slow when I see some of the new MF digitals really capturing that clarity and color of film. I'm not a resolution freak normally, but there's some kind of photos I think the larger sensor really brings to life. I will look at the 50 RII, thanks.

 

Robin thanks for your remarks. But I don't think full frame 35mm sensors like the Sony's or Nikon quite match the digital MF cameras though they are pretty darn good.

 

Karim, I would not even consider the Leica MF versions. Way over priced and I don't think they are really noticeably better than the Fuji MF. Hasselblad is a good choice too, and they probably are using Fuji glass :) I have reasons for going Fuji if I do it at all. I'm not committed to it, just exploring the idea. I use software that's tuned for Fuji cameras so I'd like to stick with them. Thanks for the links, I'll give them a look.

Edited October 14, 2021 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

,,, the newer GFX 100s Is much more compact then the GFX 100 which is much bigger with the vertical grip. The 100S is about a $1000 USD more then the 50R whereas the GFX 100 is several thousand dollars more. ...

You're right. I forgot about the newer GFX100S vs. the original GFX100. Too many models to keep track of!

You're right. I forgot about the newer GFX100S vs. the original GFX100. Too many models to keep track of!

 

I know! Makes the head spin don't it?

Barry, the fact that you mention your Mamiya 7 (and I used to shoot with a smaller 645 format Bronica ETRSi), raises an interesting question as to how much digital camera is required to match or exceed the image quality that could be achieved with a good medium-format film camera / lens combination shooting on, say Velvia 50? I remember articles in the photo press back in 2002 claiming that the FF 14MP Kodak DCS 14n and 11.1 MP Canon EOS 1Ds could rival medium-format film quality for most uses. I am not sure now true that was, and how dependent on print sizes, etc. But I can say that image quality from my current Lumix S1, FF at a modest (by today's standards) 24MP, does not leave me in any way wishing to return to film work flow to get the results I used to get with 645 medium-format. So I would be surprised if any of the current Fujifilm (or Hasselblad) MF digital options would disappoint, or have you longing to return to shooting film on the Mamiya 7.

Of course I am talking Velvia 50 scanned with a high-res scanner to make prints -- or something like Portra, if you want to look at prints from MF film without any digital workflow!

Hi here's a YouTube vid that might help?

 

Thanks Gerald. Liked the look of his files. I know all those issues of size. Its whey I went mirrorless, but the new GFX models are significantly smaller and lighter then the GFX 100 and like he said, if you want to print, it's a big deal.

Thanks Gerald. Liked the look of his files. I know all those issues of size. Its whey I went mirrorless, but the new GFX models are significantly smaller and lighter then the GFX 100 and like he said, if you want to print, it's a big deal.

 

He actually said that the GFX is for printing billboards.

That's in reference to 100, other people on the web, including This one:

Other reviews claim the 50 will give a good print at 4' by 3'. And museum quality at about 3'.

My beef about the these "MF" cameras is that their perspective is not all that different from FF. In the old days the degree of depth of field separation was great when one stepped up to MF, but these cameras are not that much different. I assume as much difference as FF is to APS-C. Is that a worthwhile difference? Personally, I am doubtful, and for that you have to put up with slower and more expensive lenses. The files may give you pleasure to look at on your wide gamut monitor, but will anyone else be able to appreciate the difference? If you post them on the web (the way most people look at photos) I doubt it. If you print them out, possibly, but are you actually do this to any signficant extent? This is what I meant about the return on investment. You would be much more able to change the look of your photos by buying an interesting FF lens, for example, a fisheye, ultra-ultra wide lens, ultra fast, long tele, or macro lens. Can these be obtained for the Fuji? I don't think so.

 

Having said this, the idea of having this kind of camera with a lens or two is attractive. A return to simpler photographic days. Very nostalgic. However we also know that this is also possible by just restricting your current camera kit to just a lens or two.