Fujifilm GFX100RF

[cgw]

I'm the thread starter... ;-)

For 2 decades Flickr has given the creators of the images the tools to prevent sharing of images. So odds are the photog with early access to the image wants it shared given no restrictions.

Not nitpicking but pointing out @21limited did provide the URL and name of the photog that created the images and never took credit for the work.

What he did is no different than hotlinking YouTube videos.A link would have

A link alone would have been kosher. That's not what he did. Flickr is beside the point.

 

[smoke665]

For the purpose of clarification... Even when the owner of the image allows for Flickr to create bulletin board code to hotlink to their images?

from the TPF Guidelines & Rules
" You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated".

 

[limr]

I'm the thread starter... ;-)

For 2 decades Flickr has given the creators of the images the tools to prevent sharing of images. So odds are the photog with early access to the image wants it shared given no restrictions.

Actually, no assumption can be made without the photographer's expressed consent.

Not nitpicking but pointing out @21limited did provide the URL and name of the photog that created the images and never took credit for the work.

What he did is no different than hotlinking YouTube videos.

The link sends people back to the platform to which the photographer has given permission to display the photograph. That is not the same as displaying the image on a different site with different terms/permissions.

 

[21limited]

For myself i was almost ready to pull the trigger on a Pentax 645Z when a buddy who had just sold one told me it wouln’t suit my style. No IBIS means a tripod. I always make best use of mobility, even my wedding photography involved a lot of candids and the mobility that involves. Here’s the website of an internet buddy who shots a 645Z. This is only 42 MP but the results are spectacular, in part becasue of the incredible DR. And that’s why I would buy a 645. He also sells large prints.

UNtil I knew the Fujifilmm was simalr in DR wouldn’t even consider it. After all, my Pentax K-1 is top shelf for DR, and having used 35mm and 645 in film, I sort of consieder my APS_c to be my film 35mm format, and my K-1 FF as my old Mamiya 645 format. But my ultimate camera reemains a 645. The K-1 is D800 or D 810 quality for those those not familiar with Pentax.

Mike Oria Photography | San Francisco Bay, Scenic, Weddings; Events; Commercial

Mike Oria creates artistic captures of California's most compelling locations. Professional portrait, wedding, engagement, product, event photography in Brentwood CA

www.mikeoria.com

Depending on the market you aim for or your shooting style, a 645 may simply be over kill.

 

[nerwin]

I mean I think It's really neat and I'm glad Fujifilm did make this camera, its something I never can afford but I like that camera manufacturers are making interesting cameras again.

 

[smoke665]

Depending on the market you aim for or your shooting style, a 645 may simply be over kill.

I've struggled with this for awhile now, and in the end I just can't justify it. My K1MII continues to be a solid performer, plus a lifetime accumulation of glass, that wouldn't cross over, and the k1's 5 axis stabilization would be be tough to give up. Now I will admit if the the right 645N came along I'd bite. Otherwise I'll keep waiting for the k1MIII.

 

[dolina]

For myself i was almost ready to pull the trigger on a Pentax 645Z when a buddy who had just sold one told me it wouln’t suit my style. No IBIS means a tripod. I always make best use of mobility, even my wedding photography involved a lot of candids and the mobility that involves. Here’s the website of an internet buddy who shots a 645Z. This is only 42 MP but the results are spectacular, in part becasue of the incredible DR. And that’s why I would buy a 645. He also sells large prints.

UNtil I knew the Fujifilmm was simalr in DR wouldn’t even consider it. After all, my Pentax K-1 is top shelf for DR, and having used 35mm and 645 in film, I sort of consieder my APS_c to be my film 35mm format, and my K-1 FF as my old Mamiya 645 format. But my ultimate camera reemains a 645. The K-1 is D800 or D 810 quality for those those not familiar with Pentax.

Mike Oria Photography | San Francisco Bay, Scenic, Weddings; Events; Commercial

Mike Oria creates artistic captures of California's most compelling locations. Professional portrait, wedding, engagement, product, event photography in Brentwood CA

www.mikeoria.com

Depending on the market you aim for or your shooting style, a 645 may simply be over kill.

I've been on APS-C since 2003 with the Canon EOS 10D & full frame since 2007 with the Canon EOS 5D.

18 years later I'd want to progress to a medium format with a 0.79x crop...

For years Canon/Nikon marketed that full frame is better than APS-C...

Now.... then would medium format be better than full frame?

I've read some online rebuttal to the no IBIS or no IOS and they point to the switch to a leaf shutter negating/reducing the need for aggressive image stabilization.

 

[smoke665]

Getting back on post, if I'm reading right there's some things on the GFX100RF that turn me off.

1. It's a fixed lens 35mm with an equivalent of 28mm, with maximum aperture of f/4. At that setting you get full use of the sensor and it's 102 MP. However if you use the crop/zoom you're cutting away sensor reducing your pixels to a 20 MP image at an equivalent of 80mm.
2. No image stabilization. This is a really big deal for me at my age.
3. It's only weatherproof with an adapter and filter.
4. Finally with a retail price of just under $5k, my impression is there's a lot of better options out there.

 

[21limited]

For people like me, no IBIS is not a surmountable option….
This is a bird shot hand held at 1/60s.
2024-12-30-AP-Logging-Museum-Nuthatch-1 by Norm Head, on Flickr

I maintain noise reduction and depth of field by shooting at 200 ISO or less and 1/60s. I lose images to motion blur, but the ones that I get are top shelf. Despite what people might tell you, there’s more to good images than resolution. I’ve talked to wedding pros who say they doin’t need more than 12 MP. And now i see amateurs claiming they need 100 MP. What’s a guy to think? Do I listen to the pros or the amaterus?

Now for the video posted, the “pro” in the photo, the guy laments the no ƒ2.8. IN terms of image quality, ƒ4 on MF is the same DoF as ƒ2.8 on FF. I would expect anyone trained in photography, to know that. This for me seriousy undermines his credibilty. It is one of the fundamentals of photography. The larger the format, the lower aperture setting you’ll find. There are lot of people who just pick up cameras and make a career of it based on chutzpa. They learn as working protocols how to get good images, but they don’tunderstand the opticl physics that is at work. Those people should not be working as commentators on new cameras. I don’t know if this guy just felt it wasn’t important to mention that, or he just didn’t know, but, he ceertainly hurt his credibility with that criticism. He also seemed to ignore the fact that a 35mm 2.8 lens on MF has to be twices the size and weight of a 35mm 2.8 lens on MF. After watching this video, I can’t recommend this guy as a competent commentator on things camera related. Watching him could lead to some fairly major misundertanings, and on a $7000 CAD piece of equipment that’s unforgivable.

I was lucky, a friend who shot MF and then sold his camera, who’s style is similar to mine warned me.
A lot of my favourite images are moving water in remote locations.….
2015-07-21-Waterfall-hikers-SF2.tiff by Norm Head, on Flickr

This waterfall is 3 or 4 days into a canoe trip and not accesable by road. It’s shot at 115mmm from across a lake. You could get closer in a canoe, but with no IBIS, a platform like a canoe is unreliable. For many of us carrying this camera on such a trip would be total waste of space in my pack. To me it’s only pssible use would be hi res street photography, ad even then, IBIS is necessary for most street photography. It’s too limited for much else. The Ricoh GR series is similar and also of similarly limited use. A buddy owns one, and he uses it as second body, but he takes his DSLR for his serious shooting. $5000 US is lot to pay for a secondary system of limited value. This appears to me to almost a fashion statement type trinket. Not a serious camera.

You have to ask, what person carries a $5000 USD second body.that is not capable of being his main camera on 99% of what he shoots? Not me, that’s for sure. I’m sure it might be of interest to somoene. Just know ome I know or have heard of. Even phone camera companies have settle on 24mm equivalent for their main lenses. Fujifilm has just goen egainst the grain in so many ways WIth 100 MP sensor you can you can increase your effective focal length by cropping. But you cant make up for it not being wide enough. So many seriously bad decisions.

 

[smoke665]

I’ve talked to wedding pros who say they doin’t need more than 12 MP. And now i see amateurs claiming they need 100 MP. What’s a guy to think? Do I listen to the pros or the amaterus?

As I mentioned above cropping away sensor pixels is a big turn off for me. I don't use the aspect crop in my K1 for the same reason. While it's true you don't necessarily need 100 MP in a finished image, you do need enough pixels in the original image to sustain a crop. I can fill the frame with a f/2.8 -70-200mm and have a 36 MP starting resolution.

This appears to me to almost a fashion statement type trinket. Not a serious camera.

Think you hit the nail on the head, a Leica Q3 or Hasselblad X2D wannabe at a poor imitation price.

 

[cgw]

Getting back on post, if I'm reading right there's some things on the GFX100RF that turn me off.

1. It's a fixed lens 35mm with an equivalent of 28mm, with maximum aperture of f/4. At that setting you get full use of the sensor and it's 102 MP. However if you use the crop/zoom you're cutting away sensor reducing your pixels to a 20 MP image at an equivalent of 80mm.
2. No image stabilization. This is a really big deal for me at my age.
3. It's only weatherproof with an adapter and filter.
4. Finally with a retail price of just under $5k, my impression is there's a lot of better options out there.

Review-wise, it's early days yet. On pricing, check the Leica competition. Then there's Hasselblad...That's one aspect of the likely appeal of this model. I do believe Fujifilm designers
did the right thing with the toggle TC switch and aspect ratio dial. Those big Fujinons are pricey, heavy and limit portability--precisely what they avoided with this design. I've never found the fixed focal length limiting on the X-100T and Ricoh GR II I shoot regularly. Need stability? Get a mono/tripod. Know a couple fashion editorial shooters in Toronto and Montreal who got in line early with Fujifilm.ca for the 100RF. Can't help wondering if there isn't a more affordable version on a drawing board.

 

[21limited]

I have no issue with fashion guys, shooting in controlled studio space and lighting going for this camera. And one of the ones I've talked to won't even get out of bed for less than $10,000. SO, ya, well suited to studio fashion work. For anyone without a great lighting set up and large studio though, I wouldn't be able to recommend it. The one important things I don't know is it's low light capability, and how it handles noise. IN digital, the reason for going MF was originally low noise. And on 645z at 42 MP it handles noise very well. With pixels 1500% smaller, more than a stop, I'd want to understand how it handles noise at higher ISOs before even considering it. Strangely, the guys I've had conversations with on line, shot for some of the most famous magazines in the world, and rarely had the highest MP cameras available. In fact many were stills shooting 16 MP when many of us amateurs were shooting 24 and 36 MP. SO, there are fashiion photographers and then there are fashion photographers. It sounds like maybe trying to compensate for other deficiencies with ridiculous MPs. I guess the positive thing here is with 100 MP you have resolution to spare, and noise reduction at the cost of resolution could be implemented as part of the design. So an informative review would address whether or not they did that. But My main lens on my K-1 is my 28-105. And I've started carrying a Sigma 24 macro for when it's not wide enough. Before I got the 24 macro and Rokinon 14mm I really wasn't all that happy with my K-1. Imagine being permanently locked into 28 mm. I know from experience, I wouldn't be happy, nor would anyone who shoots like me.

And for just walking around, I have 24mm 48 MP on my phone. Great for walking around images, and I have 3 other lenses available. It still leaves me wondering, who is this for? Apart from fashion photographers who prefer wide angle images, and that's not even 100% of fashion photgraphers who are probalby less than 1% of professional photographers, and .01% of people who regularly use a camera.

People who haven't discovered phones? Or just people who have a lot of money? Sometimes these guys live in such a bubble they actually talk themselves into thinking a $5000 USD camera is inexpensive. But only because their more versatile cameras are so much more.

 

[dolina]

GFX100RF Design Philosophy with Fujifilm's Justin Stailey | The PetaPixel Podcast

 

[21limited]

"If the purpose of buying the medium format is to take photos within uncontrolled lighting then it is pretty spectacular."

Any DR numbers to back that up? My suspicion here is they are talking about high DR camera like the Pentax 645z but, as far as I know the DR numbers for the Fuji shouldn't be as good because of the smaller pixel size.

What images do the reviewers claim are worse than the Fuji?

You do understand that Dynamic Range is measurable, and that without DR comparisons with other cameras, that statement that this camera his better is better is hollow. However, those of us who have followed these things for years, know that before mirrorless, Canon cameras were the worst for Dynamic rage, and by a considerable margin. So, I'm willing tog to concede, that if you shot Canon in the past, this camera may be better. If you shot, Pentax or Nikon, probably not. IN any case, it's larger pixel sizes that produce more dynamic rage, not more pixels, and not a larger sensor size. We're talking physics here, not opinion.

The purpose for buying a Medium format camera would be larger prints, and that is really only useful for landscape and city scapes. Never agree with reviewer images, unless they show the same image taken with another camera, so you know to which camera you are referring and you can see the difference.It is quite possible my 14 year old K-5 is better for the images you describe than this Fuji.

Those of us who made point of buying high DR cameras for years, and mainly use nothing but, will find it hard to accept a camera with such a high pixel count will have better DR.but. I'm willing to look at any lab work available on teh topic. That's how you change mymindd. Not a few talking heads blathering on ,on a YouTube video.

I understand where you are coming from, I'm not convinced this camera does what you say it does.

Here's good explanation, by guys who don't have Fuji execs sitting beside them My favourite long term reference site.

Fujifilm GFX100RF Puts 102 Megapixel Medium Format Sensor Into Compact, Vintage Body

The Fujifilm X100 series has a cult following thanks to the camera's compact form factor,

www.imaging-resource.com

Having been engaged in this kind of research for more than 15 years, Imaging Resources is the only company of this type I trust. Their testing is consistent, and best in the business. When everyone else was trashing Pentax auto-focus, IR was the company who actually ran the tests, and reported that in some ways Pentax AF was better than the others. They don’t spout popular opinion. The publiish accurate and iformative test results. IN instance like this, I always say “Let’s wait until the Imaging Resources testing is done, before we start championing dogmatic postions."

But quick calculation, the Fuji is 4 times the size, of a APS-c K-5 (or Nikon 7100). But it’s 6 times the number of pixels. That would mean a half stop less dynamic range all other things being equal. SO until Imaging Resurces tests and shows FUji is doing some kind of magic inside the cmera, that’s what I’m going with. However, it theoretically might be better than an early Canon camera,or any Canon camera before thie mirrorless camers had a measurable increase in DR.

 

[dolina]

"If the purpose of buying the medium format is to take photos within uncontrolled lighting then it is pretty spectacular."

Any DR numbers to back that up? My suspicion here is they are talking about high DR camera like the Pentax 645z but, as far as I know the DR numbers for the Fuji shouldn't be as good because of the smaller pixel size.

What images do the reviewers claim are worse than the Fuji?

You do understand that Dynamic Range is measurable, and that without DR comparisons with other cameras, that statement that this camera his better is better is hollow. However, those of us who have followed these things for years, know that before mirrorless, Canon cameras were the worst for Dynamic rage, and by a considerable margin. So, I'm willing tog to concede, that if you shot Canon in the past, this camera may be better. If you shot, Pentax or Nikon, probably not. IN any case, it's larger pixel sizes that produce more dynamic rage, not more pixels, and not a larger sensor size. We're talking physics here, not opinion.

The purpose for buying a Medium format camera would be larger prints, and that is really only useful for landscape and city scapes. Never agree with reviewer images, unless they show the same image taken with another camera, so you know to which camera you are referring and you can see the difference.It is quite possible my 14 year old K-5 is better for the images you describe than this Fuji.

Those of us who made point of buying high DR cameras for years, and mainly use nothing but, will find it hard to accept a camera with such a high pixel count will have better DR.but. I'm willing to look at any lab work available on teh topic. That's how you change mymindd. Not a few talking heads blathering on ,on a YouTube video.

I understand where you are coming from, I'm not convinced this camera does what you say it does.

Here's good explanation, by guys who don't have Fuji execs sitting beside them My favourite long term reference site.

Fujifilm GFX100RF Puts 102 Megapixel Medium Format Sensor Into Compact, Vintage Body

The Fujifilm X100 series has a cult following thanks to the camera's compact form factor,

www.imaging-resource.com

Having been engaged in this kind of research for more than 15 years, Imaging Resources is the only company of this type I trust. Their testing is consistent, and best in the business. When everyone else was trashing Pentax auto-focus, IR was the company who actually ran the tests, and reported that in some ways Pentax AF was better than the others. They don’t spout popular opinion. The publiish accurate and iformative test results. IN instance like this, I always say “Let’s wait until the Imaging Resources testing is done, before we start championing dogmatic postions."

But quick calculation, the Fuji is 4 times the size, of a APS-c K-5 (or Nikon 7100). But it’s 6 times the number of pixels. That would mean a half stop less dynamic range all other things being equal. SO until Imaging Resurces tests and shows FUji is doing some kind of magic inside the cmera, that’s what I’m going with. However, it theoretically might be better than an early Canon camera,or any Canon camera before thie mirrorless camers had a measurable increase in DR.

The DR numbers are likely forthcoming to a deep dive reviewer near you.

But given that the 645z was released over a decade ago and Pentax has not sold as much cameras as FujiFilm within that time frame then it is easy to understand that FujiFilm's R&D budget funded largely by very good sales of their X series cameras would edge them out.

Also if I am not mistaken FujiFilm's image sensor is sourced from Sony whose image sensor R&D money is from supplying ~50% of all ~1.4billion smartphones shipped worldwide annually. So whatever new tech they develop for iPhone/Galaxy/Pixel/Android cameras can scale up to larger cameras like those used by Hassleblad.

Among the same year model cameras the smaller pixel ones will suffer worse DR but given the nearly 1 dozen year tech improvement gap they may be at par or even better

It is akin to comparing a 2008 EOS 5D Mark II vs a 2015 EOS 5Ds R that have at par DR even when former has 21.1MP while the later has 50.6MP.... difference was 7 years of R&D...