Mulling X to GFX: how big of a difference?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Lens_Goat
Lens_Goat Contributing Member • Posts: 757
Mulling X to GFX: how big of a difference?

I've been lurking in this corner of the DPR forum since the GFX 50S II and its remarkably small "kit" lens were first rumored. To my astonishment, the kit is in stock everywhere. I imagined I wouldn't be able to get my hands on it until, say, April.

As much as this new system intrigues me -- the big, luscious sensor; the relative portability for such a format -- I still feel guilty for contemplating moving up from a smaller format system that has served me so well.

While I've come into some discretionary income from a daily fantasy sports gambling habit, this upgrade still feels gratuitous but I'm thus consumed with wonder on how much better the images would be coming out of a medium format sensor? I'm almost entirely a landscape photographer and this camera seems to be designed for me. The IBIS would be a godsend as well, as my current camera does not possess it.

All the while I've only ever shot APS-C. I started with an A6000 then graduated to an XT-3 in 2018. I've never once took a phot on full frame or anything greater. I remember when I first took a shot with my A6000 and compared it to my iPhone 6. I could instantly see the difference on my computer screen, no zooming in necessary. The pictures were so much richer, so much more saturated. Would going from APS-C to Medium Format be the same or when it comes to ILC cameras with good glass, the law of diminishing returns sets in once you get to like Micro 4/3?

The biggest concern I have is how I would deal with the weight? I'm used to the heft of the "Red Badge" zooms on my XT-3 (I've even come around to the 50-140) so I know I would be comfortable with the weight of the GF 35-70. However, as a landscape photographer, the next obligatory purchase would be the 100-200 f/5.6. Like I said I've come around to the 50-140 and the 100-200 is close to it in weight. But, once you mount the100-200 on the 50S II body it'll be 14 ounces heavier than the 50-140 on my XT-3. I usually hike with my 55-200 and have only once hiked with the 50-140. For those of you who owned the 50-140 on the X series and now have the 100-200, how much of difference does the added heft make? The one positive is that the lens would probably feel better balanced on the larger body.

Any thoughts, encouragement or discouragements would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Dan

 Lens_Goat's gear list:Lens_Goat's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR XF 90mm
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow