Hi Vieri - I have enjoyed your work and articles and you have graciously provided me with useful advice.
I am currently shooting with the M10 and Q, but am awaiting the announcement of the forthcoming Fuji GFX-50R rangefinder style medium format camera (hopefully next month). I am going to try to keep my M10 and Q as well for street shooting and when I want to travel light.
I bought the SL last year and used it with the 24-90mm and 90-280mm zooms as well as M lenses. I also had the GFX50S as well. As an informal personal experiment I shot each of them on Block Island in Rhode Island at different times doing landscape and other types of shooting. My own personal conclusion was asking myself why I would carry around the bulk of the SL system when to my eyes the files from the GFX50s were significantly better. I had a lot more keepers with the Fuji where I marveled at the quality of the files I was getting; I couldn’t say the same for the SL - they were good but didn’t make my jaw drop. Plus the tiltable lcd of the GFX50s was very handy when shooting low; something that frustrated me with the Sl. I shot with both cameras on many other occasions as well.
This is not to mention the MUCH higher costs of the SL lenses (especially right now with Fuji sales going on). While I really grew to like the SL controls and simplicity, in my humble opinion the files really don’t approach the quality of the GFX. A SL2 with a better sensor and resolution would be great, but who knows when that’s coming.
I’m not saying the SL sensor isn’t excellent - after all I am very happy with my M10 an Q. But for landscape shooting when I want the best quality files possible for making large prints and being able to crop when needed, there’s no question that I would go with the Fuji or Hasselblad. Just my humble opinion - obviously everyone has their own needs and desires but thought I would share my experience. To me the SL’s potential is held back by the sensor, especially if you want to print really big.
I look forward to seeing more of your work and blog posts.
Best,
Peter
Hello Peter,
thank you for your comment and for your kind words about my work and about my articles, much appreciated.
I am glad that my article here served its purpose, and that you choose the system that works best for you according to your requirements, which was exactly my point when I wrote it
I already explained in the article why I choose the SL, and I most definitely don't want to make you change your mind. However, let me just answer a couple of your points, and try to explain why I didn't consider the GFX50.
1. Sensor. I know the GFX50's sensor very well, I used it for a long time in my Pentax 645Z before moving to the Leica SL, and I know how good it is. However, the sensor of the SL is amazing, and while I would love to have more resolution for now 24 Mp are good enough for what I need, so while waiting for the next iteration of the SL I am happy with it and what it does.
2. Lens' cost. If you get all the lenses you need with the Fuji to cover the 24-90mm, cost will not be as much higher on the SL as it might seems. On the contrary
But, more than everything:
3. Lenses. The GFX 50 is VERY limited compared to the SL in focal length's coverage, especially on the ultra-wide side. Nothing in the Fuji line-up covers what the 16-35mm covers, and no adapted lenses could compare with, say, the focal of the Voigt 10mm or the Laowa 12mm. I use ultra-wides a lot, and lack of options on the ultra-wide-angle side makes the GFX 50 (and the X1D) a no-go for me right from the start. On the long side, things are a bit better but, say, since you used the 90-280mm you know that there is nothing of comparable coverage.
4. Lenses. Leica glass is, IMHO, much better than Fuji when it comes to colour rendition and colour separation. I understand that this is personal, and it's something that many people don't look for, but for me it's very important.
and finally, though perhaps not so fundamental for others:
4. UI. I much prefer the SL's UI in the field, makes for a huge difference in speed and comfort of use, which makes me work better and therefore make better pictures.
In short, even if the GFX 50s sensor offers higher resolution than the SL's, a gain in resolution alone is not enough for me to even consider the GFX 50 as a possible replacement for my SL against all that I would loose in the switch - of which, the loss of ultra-wide angles (and the loss of Leica quality glass) is a show-stopper by itself.
Hope this helps clarifying why the Fuji GFX 50, as good as it is, is not for me. As I mentioned in the article, of course, this is just me and my work
Best regards,
Vieri