FUJIFILM GFX 50S, 50R, 100, etc. ... Peculiarities

[ron787]

Hello,
I apologize if this response/question has been placed in the wrong thread.
I previously owned a GFX 50s and sold it due to its form factor. I am now considering the purchase of a GFX 50r. In the absence of the GFX50s I have been using a Panasonic S1r and have been thrilled with its IBIS, and am wondering if current users have found the absence of IBIS to be an issue in regards to the 50r. I am not a youngster, and my advancing years have brought with it some deterioration in hand steadiness that has not been a problem with the S1r. All of my currently owned cameras have IBIS, and while I could test my handholding ability by suspending the FF or micro 4/3 camera's IBIS, the sensor size differential may negate an accurate comparison.
Thank you in advance.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Hello,
I apologize if this response/question has been placed in the wrong thread.
I previously owned a GFX 50s and sold it due to its form factor. I am now considering the purchase of a GFX 50r. In the absence of the GFX50s I have been using a Panasonic S1r and have been thrilled with its IBIS, and am wondering if current users have found the absence of IBIS to be an issue in regards to the 50r. I am not a youngster, and my advancing years have brought with it some deterioration in hand steadiness that has not been a problem with the S1r. All of my currently owned cameras have IBIS, and while I could test my handholding ability by suspending the FF or micro 4/3 camera's IBIS, the sensor size differential may negate an accurate comparison.
Thank you in advance.

GFX100 seems to be the GFX camera for you, no? :thumbup:
Or tripod use? :grin:

Handholding wide angle like GF23 doesn't seem an issue for me.
Neither are the lenses with OIS. :clap:

 

[ron787]

GFX100 seems to be the GFX camera for you, no? :thumbup:
Or tripod use? :grin:

Handholding wide angle like GF23 doesn't seem an issue for me.
Neither are the lenses with OIS. :clap:

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, in theory, the GFX100 appears to be a good choice, given its IBIS. However, size, weight and cost are deterring factors. That said, I have considered its purchase, but would like to see more user reports before I commit to a $10,000 decision.
As for the lenses with OIS, they are few. When I'd owned the GFX50s I also owned the 120mm OIS. Its stabilization ability was just OK, not up to the quality of a good IBIS system.

A tripod is always a good idea from a stabilization viewpoint, but not practical for the kind of imaging that I do. With the exception of occasional macro work, everything else is done handheld.

The GFXr is now being discounted here in the US, and it is at reasonably attractive price point. However, it might make more sense for me to focus on the GFX100.
Thanks again.

 

[Knorp]

Hello,
I apologize if this response/question has been placed in the wrong thread.
I previously owned a GFX 50s and sold it due to its form factor. I am now considering the purchase of a GFX 50r. In the absence of the GFX50s I have been using a Panasonic S1r and have been thrilled with its IBIS, and am wondering if current users have found the absence of IBIS to be an issue in regards to the 50r. I am not a youngster, and my advancing years have brought with it some deterioration in hand steadiness that has not been a problem with the S1r. All of my currently owned cameras have IBIS, and while I could test my handholding ability by suspending the FF or micro 4/3 camera's IBIS, the sensor size differential may negate an accurate comparison.
Thank you in advance.

I don't get it: what's wrong with the S1R that makes you want a 50R ?

 

[ron787]

I don't get it: what's wrong with the S1R that makes you want a 50R ?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the S1r, but there is something about the MF aspect ratio/output that has always caught my eye. The S1r is a definite keeper, especially with Leica SL lenses attached.

As previously mentioned, I'd owned a GFX50s that I'd sold for several reasons, none of which were related to IQ. That said, I'd found the camera to be slow in response and of bulky design, to the extent that I'd begun to leave it behind in favor of my other camera options. But it is for the aforementioned reason (aspect ratio and IQ) that I would like to reenter the MF world. And for the reasons that I'd disposed of the 50s, I suppose that the 50r would not be a prudent choice and, despite my earlier statement in re the GFX100, I am now seriously considering its purchase.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Fujifilm GFX 100 Review

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PR...erm=0_21bbde8306-8ea516fa09-83869249#shooting

 

[ron787]

GFX100 seems to be the GFX camera for you, no? :thumbup:
Or tripod use? :grin:

Handholding wide angle like GF23 doesn't seem an issue for me.
Neither are the lenses with OIS. :clap:

After some mental wrestling, I've ordered the GFX100. It is still listed as backordered on the major reseller's websites, so it could be a long time in the coming. But despite this decision, I will continue to enjoy using my S1r with Leica SL and Panasonic Lumix S lenses. Life is short and unpredictable, why not enjoy it while you can.

 

[k-hawinkler]

After some mental wrestling, I've ordered the GFX100. It is still listed as backordered on the major reseller's websites, so it could be a long time in the coming. But despite this decision, I will continue to enjoy using my S1r with Leica SL and Panasonic Lumix S lenses. Life is short and unpredictable, why not enjoy it while you can.

Congratulations on ordering and great points you make.

Indeed, life is short and unpredictable, why not enjoy it while you can.
I am using Fuji, Sony, Olympus, and now to a much lesser degree Nikon and Leica gear, mostly lenses of the latter two. Some of those FF lenses can even be adapted to the Fuji GFX cameras, showing only a tad of vignetting.

I am curious how long it will take for you to receive the GFX100. Please let us know. Good luck.

 

[Oren Grad]

For those who are interested: Jim Kasson finally received his GFX100 and is now churning out a steady stream of test results characterizing the behavior of the camera both absolutely and relative to the GFX50 cameras.

http://blog.kasson.com/

 

[k-hawinkler]

For those who are interested: Jim Kasson finally received his GFX100 and is now churning out a steady stream of test results characterizing the behavior of the camera both absolutely and relative to the GFX50 cameras.

the last word ? Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins — most of the time.

Thanks Oren. Excellent! :thumbs:

Following are three sharpness related measurements by Jim Kasson:

Fuji GFX 100 sharpness, LoCA, focus shift with 110/2, August 5, 2019 By JimK
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-sharpness-loca-focus-shift-with-110-2/

Fujifilm GFX 100 sharpness compared to GFX 50s, August 6, 2019 By JimK
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fujifilm-gfx-100-sharpness-compared-to-gfx-50s/

GFX 100 sharpening in Lightroom, August 7, 2019 By JimK
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/gfx-100-sharpening-in-lightroom/

It's worth reading Jim's posts.
Here is my brief summary for GF110 f/2:

• the pixel-level sharpness of the GFX 100 was less than the GFX 50S, and
• the picture-level sharpness was about the same.

• ACR and LR default sharpness settings (Strength = 40, radius = 1.0, detail = 25) suck.
• Better for GFX 50S (Strength = 10, radius = 1.0, detail = 10)
• Better for GFX 100 (Strength = 10, radius = 0.5, detail = 0)

• There isn’t very much LoCA at all For GF110 f/2 on GFX 100.

One more interesting pst by Jim Kasson:

Fuji GFX 100 vs 50S sharpness with 3D subject, August 7, 2019 By JimK
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100-vs-50s-sharpness-with-3d-subject/

Quote:
"
The GFX 100 image doesn’t look unequivocally sharper, but it is more detailed and smoother. But there are other systematic differences:

There is far less false color in the GFX 100 image.
The blue/purple fringing in the GFX 50R image that appeared to be LoCA isn’t present in the GFX 100 image, indicating that it was a false color artifact.
"

 

[ron787]

Congratulations on ordering and great points you make.

Indeed, life is short and unpredictable, why not enjoy it while you can.
I am using Fuji, Sony, Olympus, and now to a much lesser degree Nikon and Leica gear, mostly lenses of the latter two. Some of those FF lenses can even be adapted to the Fuji GFX cameras, showing only a tad of vignetting.

I am curious how long it will take for you to receive the GFX100. Please let us know. Good luck.

I will definitely post when it arrives, but I am prepared for a protracted waiting period, as the store could not provide an ETA. I ordered it with the GF 45mm F/2.8 to begin with. In the past, when I'd owned the GFX50s, I'd used the 63mm as well as the 120mm OIS, both were stellar performers. This time around I've opted for a focal length that I am accustomed to using with my S1R, but I am certain that there are other GF lenses in my future, that is, assuming that I can bond with the GFX100 ... one never knows.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Fujifilm GFX 100 review, Published Aug 7, 2019 | Richard Butler
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-100-review?ref_=pe_1822230_424070940_dpr_nl_384_4

 

[biglouis]

I'm also someone who left the Fuji MF system and now concentrates wholly on the APS-C XF system.

In my case it was for medical reasons. Over time I found it harder and harder to carry the GFX 50S and lenses on urban work where I travel by foot or public transport (there is no point in driving a car in London after about 7AM in the morning). I have a weak back and even though I felt that I could cope with hauling the weight of the camera and lenses in the end I couldn't. When I had my last bout of back trouble I was confined to using my X-T3 and it forced me to buy a couple of XF lenses to complete my work.

However, the XF system - while very good for APS-C, especially for my initial intended purpose, which was wildlife - is not a replacement of the GF system, at all - to an experienced eye. Although I now own the XF 8-16 UWA, widely acclaimed as a stellar lens for the XF system, results using the X-T3 do not achieve the same detail, colouration or 'pop' as the GFX50S+23mm, for example. I found the GFX50S and most of the GF lenses gave me a 'pop' which I had only previously seen with Leica cameras and lenses.

That said, I just did an architecture assignment for a client shot mostly with the X-H1 and the XF 8-16 and they are not only happy but one of their suppliers was so impressed they also want to use the photos. In the end, as most of us know, unless you are doing front pages for Vogue, most clients cannot tell the difference between any kind of camera system - as long as your content is good.

The only situation in which I have bettered my GF system with the XF is in the macro space. The XF 80/2.8 is an awesome lens. I suspect I have produced better results because for handheld macro purposes, the X-T3+80/2.8 is a lot lighter and therefore you can handhold and shoot a lot easier. I would say it equals the use of the GF 120mm for architectural detail, which is what I use a medium telephoto for mostly (and for the pleasure of photographing bugs and things, now and then).

If you can handle the weight I cannot do other than highly recommend the GF system (although I can't believe anyone other than professionals doing fashion or product work need the 100mpx) - so if I was younger, stronger and my back wasn't well into its seventh decade of service I wouldn't hesitate to go Fuji MF, if money were no object.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Louis. I wish your back doesn't give you anymore troubles.
I am also into my seventies and had a short episode of back pain.
Luckily my back recovered fast and I have no problem carrying my Fuji GFX gear around. :thumbup:

A friend of mine uses his Fuji XF gear for church, theater, and sports, primarily swimming competitions with excellent results.

I have to agree the GF23 on 50S is stellar. :clap:

 

[ptomsu]

I'm also someone who left the Fuji MF system and now concentrates wholly on the APS-C XF system.

In my case it was for medical reasons. Over time I found it harder and harder to carry the GFX 50S and lenses on urban work where I travel by foot or public transport (there is no point in driving a car in London after about 7AM in the morning). I have a weak back and even though I felt that I could cope with hauling the weight of the camera and lenses in the end I couldn't. When I had my last bout of back trouble I was confined to using my X-T3 and it forced me to buy a couple of XF lenses to complete my work.

However, the XF system - while very good for APS-C, especially for my initial intended purpose, which was wildlife - is not a replacement of the GF system, at all - to an experienced eye. Although I now own the XF 8-16 UWA, widely acclaimed as a stellar lens for the XF system, results using the X-T3 do not achieve the same detail, colouration or 'pop' as the GFX50S+23mm, for example. I found the GFX50S and most of the GF lenses gave me a 'pop' which I had only previously seen with Leica cameras and lenses.

That said, I just did an architecture assignment for a client shot mostly with the X-H1 and the XF 8-16 and they are not only happy but one of their suppliers was so impressed they also want to use the photos. In the end, as most of us know, unless you are doing front pages for Vogue, most clients cannot tell the difference between any kind of camera system - as long as your content is good.

The only situation in which I have bettered my GF system with the XF is in the macro space. The XF 80/2.8 is an awesome lens. I suspect I have produced better results because for handheld macro purposes, the X-T3+80/2.8 is a lot lighter and therefore you can handhold and shoot a lot easier. I would say it equals the use of the GF 120mm for architectural detail, which is what I use a medium telephoto for mostly (and for the pleasure of photographing bugs and things, now and then).

If you can handle the weight I cannot do other than highly recommend the GF system (although I can't believe anyone other than professionals doing fashion or product work need the 100mpx) - so if I was younger, stronger and my back wasn't well into its seventh decade of service I wouldn't hesitate to go Fuji MF, if money were no object.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

Louis,

sorry to hear you had to stop using your GFX kit.

Now with your X kit are you seeing any noticable differences from IQ compared to what you got from your former m43 kit?

Thanks

Peter

 

[biglouis]

Louis,

sorry to hear you had to stop using your GFX kit.

Now with your X kit are you seeing any noticable differences from IQ compared to what you got from your former m43 kit?

Thanks

Peter

Low light performance and AF-C performance are better on the X-T3 than any of my former m43rds cameras (GX8, GH5, G9).

In fact the poor performance of the DFD auto focus on my Panasonic cameras kit signalled its demise as a system. I was totally fed up with missing easy wildlife shots while the auto-focus hunted and failed to lock. The AF on the X-T3 is fantastic, it does hunt for focus on small birds against a bright sky but in all other instances lock on normally fast and solid.

Low light performance of the 26mpx BSI sensor is very good indeed. I have no qualms about shooting at iso3200 and still get impressive detail, something I am afraid was impossible on the Panasonic bodies.

It is a shame to see the reviews of the new FF Panasonic cameras also falling down on the continuous AF performance. I think Panasonic are too heavily influenced by Leica. It is very 'Leica-like' thing to stick to the theoretical superiority of a system like DFD, when the practical reality is that it doesn't work.

The one thing I do miss is the PanaLeica glass. No doubt about it. It is very tuned towards Leica 'pop'. If I could justify two different system kits - which I used to but now I am much more constrained in my budget for kit - I'd have kept the Panasonic system and lenses for work and just use the Fuji system for wildlife. I still maintain that the Olympus PRO 7-14/2.8 is the best UWA Zoom I have ever used, even as good (or better?) than the much lauded XF 8-16 which I own now. Like wise the X Vario 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. Two absolutely outstanding lenses.

For all practical intents and purposes, apart from my experience with wildlife photography, the m43rds system and the Fuji system both produce excellent results. If Panasonic moved to a BSI sensor to improve low light performance and junked the DFD system in favour of a more conventional AF system, then it would be perfect.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

Low light performance and AF-C performance are better on the X-T3 than any of my former m43rds cameras (GX8, GH5, G9).

In fact the poor performance of the DFD auto focus on my Panasonic cameras kit signalled its demise as a system. I was totally fed up with missing easy wildlife shots while the auto-focus hunted and failed to lock. The AF on the X-T3 is fantastic, it does hunt for focus on small birds against a bright sky but in all other instances lock on normally fast and solid.

Low light performance of the 26mpx BSI sensor is very good indeed. I have no qualms about shooting at iso3200 and still get impressive detail, something I am afraid was impossible on the Panasonic bodies.

It is a shame to see the reviews of the new FF Panasonic cameras also falling down on the continuous AF performance. I think Panasonic are too heavily influenced by Leica. It is very 'Leica-like' thing to stick to the theoretical superiority of a system like DFD, when the practical reality is that it doesn't work.

The one thing I do miss is the PanaLeica glass. No doubt about it. It is very tuned towards Leica 'pop'. If I could justify two different system kits - which I used to but now I am much more constrained in my budget for kit - I'd have kept the Panasonic system and lenses for work and just use the Fuji system for wildlife. I still maintain that the Olympus PRO 7-14/2.8 is the best UWA Zoom I have ever used, even as good (or better?) than the much lauded XF 8-16 which I own now. Like wise the X Vario 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. Two absolutely outstanding lenses.

For all practical intents and purposes, apart from my experience with wildlife photography, the m43rds system and the Fuji system both produce excellent results. If Panasonic moved to a BSI sensor to improve low light performance and junked the DFD system in favour of a more conventional AF system, then it would be perfect.

Just my two cents.

LouisB

Thanks for this honest answer, I really appreciate!

I must say that if I had a second system it would be the Fuji X system, even after all the FF mirrorless announcements - so much I love Fuji X System Maybe one day - if the X-H2 arrives - this will mark my reentry into Fuji.

Having said that I was more than happy using just my "ancient" Olympus EM1.2 with latest FW 3.1 and the 2.8/12-40 and the 2.8/40-150 during my latest Florida vacation. Perfect setup for all types of shooting conditions I was into. The one thing I am thinking to improve for future is toads the 4/12-100 PRO to my setup because this would be the only lens I travel with when I do not have specific requirements.

I think that in the end the approach from Olympus to use 121 PDAF points in combination with CDAF on their 20MP sensors was and still is the right one. Did not have many conditions where AF as well as AF-C Tracking failed. And this is even better with the new EM1.X if one needs (tested this beasts some months ago and maybe I will get one - it is as good)!

Other than that I am hoping for a higher resolution EVF in their next model as well as further improved (faster) handheld High Res mode.Maybe we will see that in the next version of the EM1.2 - the EM1.3 that should arrive next year.

From size - I am no longer willing to carry more than say the Olympus EM1.2 with PRO lenses or a Fuji X-T3/X-H2 with lenses - all other is too much for me. And also too expensive. I also had high hopes for the Panasonic S1/S1R but for me these cameras arte simply too heavy, have the DFD issues you describe and also will not match with my M lenses perfectly. So for that I rather would add a used M240 or M10 to my arsenal and call it a day.

Peter

 

[k-hawinkler]

How fast is the GFX 100 electronic shutter?
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/how-fast-is-the-gfx-100-electronic-shutter/

For 14 bit images: 1/6 s
For 16 bit images: 1/3 s

 

[ron787]

I happened to come across several forum poster's comments regarding the aesthetics of the new Fuji GFX100. They'd opined that the Leica SL's body is attractive, while that of the GFX100 is not. As a prior Leica SL owner and a current owner of a Panasonic S1R and G9, I can truthfully say that, IMO, all three bodies, viewed from their faces (the SL, S1R and GFX100) bear a striking resemblance, once you factor in their varying dimensions. In essence, they appear, once again IMO, to represent a flat slab of metal with a variously protruding grip. That said, I find them neither attractive nor unattractive. Of the two bodies mentioned, the SL and S1R are the closest in appearance. As for the GFX, the permanently attached grip might throw one off visually, but the corresponding extender to either camera and there you have it, at least in my eyes.

But the aesthetics aside, for myself, the most important aspect of any camera is function, and the GFX appears to have it. Still waiting for mine.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Ron. I actually prefer an integrated grip, had that with my Nikon D3.
On my Fuji 50S the battery grip loosens occasionally a little bit.
Then one battery disappears from the top LCD. :facesmack:
No big deal. :ROTFL:
Cheers.