Brief thoughts on the Fujifilm GFX100

A handheld digital camera with a sensor 44mm wide with IBIS, 100Mpx, 5fps, 4K video (full sensor width but at 17:9), a body no bigger than a D5, lenses that can out-resolve the sensor, and a price much less than half of a Phase One or a Leica S.

 

I think Fujifilm wants to eat everyone for lunch. 'Full frame'? LOL. Holy s***.

Too big for me for street work. Pricey for my budget, but a good deal for those with $$. Files are pretty big for me as well.

 

Overall, a nice cam for those that can afford and be able to use it.

I just wonder how many people actually have a way to use 100 MP.

I agree that it was essential to make that beast. Tech has to get pushed up into the bigger formats. Dim CCD sensor MF seemed barely shootable at all hand held, without flash, at a shutter speed safe enough to benefit of it's resolution.

Fuji's policy to not bother with FF, by offering enough from APS C and more from crop MF makes a lot of sense.

I can neither afford that toy nor handle it's files but am curious how well it will really perform (AF!) and where things might get going from here.

When will PD AF capable MF sensors lead to a technology that detects two faces in our frame and tilts the lens to focus on both?

Will Ricoh limp behind, with an SR version of their Pentax 645?

I just wonder how many people actually have a way to use 100 MP

80%+x of the settIed shutterbugs? - I just fed my calculator: Conservatively quality printed the picture would be just 1.37m on the long side. - Shoot a portrait of somebody and decorate a door with the print (done out of house)? - This is meant as a respectful answer, assuming that many folks don't have wall vacancies in that size and if they had (behind a couch or such) wouldn't have a chance to get close enough, to adore the resolution captured. But naked doors can probably be found in a lot of homes?

The GFX100 would be perfect for landscapes, which are often printed at large sizes. It would also be good for commercial, portrait and glamor photography. The high resolution and wide dynamic range would also be ideal for architecture. With such high resolution, Moire patterns are negligible. Even in smaller print sizes (or glossy magazines), high resolution gives a sense of texture you don't get otherwise.

 

$10K is a bit rich for me, and just a down payment considering the cost of lenses. Still, it's not too far off of the $9K I paid for a 16 MP Hasselblad back 10 years ago. No surprise Hasselblad seems to have dropped out of the mirrorless MF race (for now).

My brief thought is that it has 70-80MB more pixels than 99% of us need.

Fujifilm seems to be consistently out-innovating the major camera makers. Many of the GFX 100 features will likely trickle down to the rest of the fleet. Maybe such design advances are only possible in a company like Fujifilm that doesn't rely so heavily on imaging product revenues. Cameras like this just aren't being cranked out by Canon and Nikon.

Presenting just 25% of ones megapixels covers high ISO noise pretty well. For that reason buying 4x your needed MP isn't the worst idea ever.

design advances

Am I overlooking something? - The only great one I noticed in Fuji' MF line up is the optional swiveling hinge for the EVF. - Yes, IBIS is great to have but even Nikon pack it into their Z series now.

The Z series isn't exactly a halo product given its recall issues.

My brief thought is that it has 70-80MB more pixels than 99% of us need.

I agree. I think that a good 10Mpx sensor is no bad thing, even in Current Year. The Leica M8 at base ISO produces lovely images that can be enlarged quite a bit. I do like some room to crop if I have to, so something like 24Mpx is plenty. YMMV. :-)

 

The M9 is still in use today by all kinds of photographers. Its value is dropping but it took a long while to get down to current prices. Compared to DSLRs from that era, the M9 held its proportional value better than any of them.

100MP is a good thing but I much rather like the GFX-50R body style and size.

It's not petite but the ergonomics are nice for something its size and weight. The virtual dial feature is useful. Got to play with one recently and was expecting something as clumsy as a Pentax 67. It's not. The AF after only a brief session seemed quick and accurate.

Fuji's policy to not bother with FF, by offering enough from APS C and more from crop MF makes a lot of sense.

Hmmm. Wander over to Imaging Resource's site and compare like-for-like shots taken with almost any full-frame camera with those from Fuji's APS-sized sensors. At high ISO speeds, it's Fuji's X-trans that gets eaten for lunch. Nikon's Z6 and the Panasonic S1 absolutely trounce it at 25600 ISO, and at any ISO speed the colour differentiation of the X-trans sensor is inferior. Sure, the X-trans renders orthogonal edges slightly sharper, but at the expense of contours that aren't orthogonal - like 99% of the contours found in a landscape.

 

As for being 'medium format' - hah! It's less than one-quarter wider, and only 1/3rd taller than full-frame, and it's those linear dimensions that count. Not the misleading area increase. And for that you're going to be paying with more design-restricted lenses and a dimensions cubed weight increase.

 

Given that pixel-shifting technology can already almost match its native pixel count, where's the big advantage? Personally, if I had that sort of cash to splash, it would go on exotic glassware, not on pixels that can potentially out-resolve anything likely to be put in front of the camera.

Well sure, the Fuji APSC system isn’t meant to be an exact match for a new full frame camera. Fuji isn’t trying to make a camera like that. Fuji can make an APSC system that checks a lot of boxes and is smaller and less expensive than full frame kits. Its competition is Sony and M4/3, and plenty of customers find the Fuji X system better than those. At the high end, the price-tolerant consumer might go for the larger sensor - if there are people buying $5000 full frame cameras, Fuji should be able to sell GFX50R’s, and obviously they think there are enough buyers for crazy pixels to be worth the investment.

Fuji is very good at finding an under-served niche, and exploiting the hell out of it. Even now, they remain the only game in town for midrange APS-C mirrorless: everybody else jumped into 4/3 or FX (Canon does have their ever-evolving M line of APS-C, but can't give it away outside the Japan home market).

 

Non-pro, non-billable medium format digital is a small but persistent niche, that virtually no one was serving with new affordable compelling hardware until Fuji dropped the GFX-50s system. It sold for a fraction of the bizarro-world, untethered-to-reality prices Phase One was asking for exactly the same sensor in their products. Hasselblad countered with the adorable X1D, which was also a hit (until it sunk in that its pointless reliance on complex leaf shutter lenses would become crippling as the market fluctuates). Recently the Fuji GFX-50R filled the vacuum left by disappearance of the X1D (almost as if Fuji knew in advance that Hasselblad would stumble out of the game). Now, they offer the 100S, which will grab another piece of the Phase One market (unless you seriously plan to do a lot of work with klutzy field cameras to get movements, the Fuji will do fine at far less cost).

 

The 33x44 MF digital market is driven by "feels" and personal preference: as rodeo_joe notes, this sensor size is the disrespected APS-C of medium format (i.e., why bother vs the D850 or "true" MF sensors). A segment of the market simply wants to use something different, esp for landscape, and Fuji gives them that (now in 100MP as well as 50MP). After the recent contraction of MF vendors, Fuji again finds itself in a unique position with almost no direct competition in 33x44 (Pentax is stuck in limbo, Hasselblad has gone radio silent, and Phase One has re-oriented toward the larger, hideously expensive "FX" medium format sensors).

 

Will 33x44 be a great business for Fuji? Who knows. They aren't exactly setting the world on fire with APS-C either: sure it sells, but its subject to the same declining camera market pressures as everything else. Fuji has the luxury of being able to somewhat subsidize an eccentric, boutique camera division: thats wonderful for all photographers, whether we use a Fuji product or not. Choices are good, competition is good, innovation is good: we all benefit, directly or indirectly.

Edited May 31, 2019 by orsetto

@fuji has the luxury of being able to somewhat subsidize an eccentric, boutique camera division" Or

 

Really. How about it is capable of taking some nice photos?

 

Hmm, some folks are lost in gear talk.

.

Try taking photos and sharing them.

 

Pixels do not really matter.

 

Repeat after me :" the gear does not really matter, only my photographic eye matters".

 

Just a thought.

Repeat after me :" the gear does not really matter, only my photographic eye matters".

The gear really does matter. It's not the most important thing, but it is important and it does matter. Even for beginners. But maybe that's a whole other discussion.

Hmmm. Wander over to Imaging Resource's site and compare like-for-like shots taken with almost any full-frame camera with those from Fuji's APS-sized sensors. At high ISO speeds, it's Fuji's X-trans that gets eaten for lunch. Nikon's Z6 and the Panasonic S1 absolutely trounce it at 25600 ISO, and at any ISO speed the colour differentiation of the X-trans sensor is inferior. Sure, the X-trans renders orthogonal edges slightly sharper, but at the expense of contours that aren't orthogonal - like 99% of the contours found in a landscape.

 

As for being 'medium format' - hah! It's less than one-quarter wider, and only 1/3rd taller than full-frame, and it's those linear dimensions that count. Not the misleading area increase. And for that you're going to be paying with more design-restricted lenses and a dimensions cubed weight increase.

 

Given that pixel-shifting technology can already almost match its native pixel count, where's the big advantage? Personally, if I had that sort of cash to splash, it would go on exotic glassware, not on pixels that can potentially out-resolve anything likely to be put in front of the camera.

 

Seems fitting that we observe a PN moment of silence for the poor delusional souls who bought--and continue to buy--Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Might they have done things differently had they known how inadequate ISO 25,600 shots would be?

@fuji has the luxury of being able to somewhat subsidize an eccentric, boutique camera division" Or

 

Really. How about it is capable of taking some nice photos?

 

What exactly is your argument with me here? Where did ever I say "Fujis aren't capable of taking great pictures?" In other threads, I've referred to your photos as excellent examples of what the Fuji X system is capable of, so what is your beef? We're mostly talking about the introduction of their interesting new product, GFX-100S, and how it might be received in various markets. I'm on the side of "its a good thing". I'm thrilled to see any new major camera from Fuji, because it indicates the photography enthusiasts at the top of their corporate hierarchy still have significant influence. Thats what I meant by "they have the luxury of somewhat subsidizing a boutique camera division" - Fuji is a very different company than it was fifteen years ago. Their camera division is something they can afford to do for pride now: it isn't the primary or even tertiary priority of the company (unlike, say, Nikon, which has zero wiggle room for experimentation with something like the GFX-50R or GFX-100S).

 

Hmm, some folks are lost in gear talk.

 

On this thread, and many others, yes. Threads that talk about gear, talk about gear. Threads about pics, like the amazing years-ongoing contributions of Rick Drawbridge, primarily show pics. Different discussions, nothing wrong with that. You don't see people on car enthusiast forums chanting "why don't you show videos of you racing" in every discussion of transmission upgrades in the new Mustang. Yeesh.

Seems fitting that we observe a PN moment of silence for the poor delusional souls who bought--and continue to buy--Fujifilm cameras and lenses. Might they have done things differently had they known how inadequate ISO 25,600 shots would be?

This Fuji, like Leica, snobbery (or defensiveness, not sure which) is a complete over-reaction to what was said.

I was just pointing out that Fuji's APS X-trans sensor isn't a full-frame beater, not by a long way, and in fact Sony's APS a6500 delivers equivalent image quality.

 

Also, since Fuji seems to be a popular choice with street and candid shooters, I would have thought its high ISO performance was entirely relevant, and worthy of comparison with other brands and formats. If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you're entitled to voice it. As I am to mine.

 

That Fuji ignore the full-frame market is entirely up to them. My view is that a hugely more expensive 'MF' camera is no substitute. Whether it'll pay off for them is doubtful, but it's their R&D money to waste.

 

I'll add that Fujinon lenses can be second to none, and I consider it a shame that they don't bring that optical skill to bear on the full-frame market.

Edited June 2, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I think C-Watson's comment was meant to be satyrical. How many people shoot regularly at ISO 25,600? Fuji cameras have a lot going for them, and their lenses are first rate. I have Fuji lenses on two Canon video cameras. When it came time to replace my Nikon system, I strongly considered Fuji, but opted for a FF camera for better options in lenses.

 

I generally shoot in Aperture Priority mode, but with Auto ISO turned on. I'm surprised to see how often the venues I shoot end up maxing out at 25,600.

Seems fitting that we observe a PN moment of silence for the poor delusional souls who bought--and continue to buy--Fujifilm cameras and lenses.?

 

a moment of silence for the poor delusional souls spending $10k on fujifilm camera gear .. and long for full frame

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

a moment of silence for the poor delusional souls spending $10k on fujifilm camera gear .. and long for full frame

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

The point being...?