Reading mode: Light Dark

Can't decide between BF and GFX100RF

Go to last post
L

Lukacs85

Leading Member
Messages
805
Reaction score
677
Location
Kecskemét, HU
I don't know how many are in the same boat, but I got into dead end with this first world problem.

What I like in BF:
  • Lens change option - different focal lengths, f2 aperture
  • Simplicity
  • Design
  • Price (with one i lens half the price of GFX100RF)
  • Interface
  • Durability (no moving parts, card doors, screen mechanism)
  • Working with 24MP raws more simple, faster, conivinient
In GFX 100RF:
  • Huge sensor with high resolution for cropping ability, Bayer demosaic pattern fading away, better dynamic range, better tonality, colors.
  • Complete camera, no urge building a system
  • Ergonomic is exist, tall body grip, small lens bump the mass center in the body
  • Size with the built in lens
  • EVF
  • Tilting screen
  • Aspect ratio dial
  • Hot shoe
  • Leaf shutter
In BF the interchangeable lens is a huge deal, because in terms of the RF I have the 28mm FOV with F4 and done. But the cropping ability may helping, I use 28-50mm range excursively. On the same time in BF the lack of the flash use a bit pain, even if I'm not a flash photographer.

Both cameras built appeals me but in different way. The nostalgic, convinient and versatile RF design of the GFX, and one of my favourite DP2Q camera body like simple and sturdy BF. I'd get both, but even one of each is a quite investment.

There is one critical performance preference which still unclear, the AF.
 
Last edited:
Lukacs85 said:
In BF the interchangeable lens is a huge deal, because in terms of the RF I have the 28mm FOV with F4 and done.
Click to expand...
35mm equivalent for MF f/4 is just over f/3 (crop factor 0.78).
 
xpatUSA said:
Lukacs85 said:
In BF the interchangeable lens is a huge deal, because in terms of the RF I have the 28mm FOV with F4 and done.
Click to expand...
35mm equivalent for MF f/4 is just over f/3 (crop factor 0.78).
Click to expand...
I'm aware of perfectly. I think sticking with BF, I just can't justify so high value camera with one f4 focal length forever. I can accept at DP series or GR3 price range but not in gfx100rf. Still I like the camera very much.
 
Lukacs85 said:
I don't know how many are in the same boat, but I got into dead end with this first world problem.

What I like in BF:
  • Lens change option - different focal lengths, f2 aperture
Click to expand...
If depth of field is at all important to you- an interchangeable lens camera is appropriate.
Lukacs85 said:
  • Simplicity
  • Design
  • Price (with one i lens half the price of GFX100RF)
  • Interface
  • Durability (no moving parts, card doors, screen mechanism)
  • Working with 24MP raws more simple, faster, conivinient
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how "simplicity" and "interface" are separable to you. My point of view - as someone who has a BF on pre-order. The interface is nice, but not THE deciding factor for me in getting the camera.

If 24mp is enough for you - that probably says something about the GF.

It remains to be seen how well the (one?) moving part - the rear dial - actually holds up. Sigma cameras haven't had the best track record with dials, but I do believe they stepped their game up with this camera and it won't be an issue.

IMO the long term durability of a camera is more to do with the rear LCD and sensor than the dials.
Lukacs85 said:
In GFX 100RF:
  • Huge sensor with high resolution for cropping ability, Bayer demosaic pattern fading away, better dynamic range, better tonality, colors.
Click to expand...
What does "bayer demosiac pattern fading away" mean - that at 50 megapixels you get better images than at 24?

I do agree that Fuji colors are amazing. But the GFX 50R and GFX 50S are selling for not much more than the Sigma BF so.... (lenses on the other hand...)
Lukacs85 said:
  • Complete camera, no urge building a system
  • Ergonomic is exist, tall body grip, small lens bump the mass center in the body
  • Size with the built in lens
  • EVF
  • Tilting screen
  • Aspect ratio dial
Click to expand...
Fun. I mean Panasonic did it first. But fun.
Lukacs85 said:
  • Hot shoe
  • Leaf shutter
Click to expand...
Both important only if you do flash/strobe photography or care about rolling shutter.
Lukacs85 said:
In BF the interchangeable lens is a huge deal, because in terms of the RF I have the 28mm FOV with F4 and done. But the cropping ability may helping, I use 28-50mm range excursively.
Click to expand...
If you're a 24-50 and don't need shallow depth of field - IMO go for the Fuji.
Lukacs85 said:
On the same time in BF the lack of the flash use a bit pain, even if I'm not a flash photographer.
Click to expand...
Not at all for me - I do use flash sometimes... I just know the BF isn't the camera to use with flash.

Also the Fuji medium format cameras have a max flash sync speed of 1/125. If the BF has a leaf shutter, that's amazing. Too bad leaf shutters are exclusive to their fixed lens cameras.... Not that I want to pay Hasselbad prices for a leaf shutter.
Lukacs85 said:
Both cameras built appeals me but in different way. The nostalgic, convinient and versatile RF design of the GFX, and one of my favourite DP2Q camera body like simple and sturdy BF. I'd get both, but even one of each is a quite investment.
Click to expand...
As a DPxQ and DPxM owner...

Get the GF if your goal is a single camera you can take with you anywhere no matter the weather and get the shot.

Ge the BF if your goal is to maximize your image quality via lens choice.
Lukacs85 said:
There is one critical performance preference which still unclear, the AF.
Click to expand...
 
Get the BF with one or two of those little i series lenses and a Panasonic 20-60, use it for three months at least, and if you still want to try the Fuji then sell the L mount stuff and buy the Fuji, and try that for at least six months. The Fuji has the 100 MP advantage at wide-angle. The only way to tell how important that is to you is to try it. The Fuji seems more convenient too.

If you ever want to go wider the BF has the advantage, and you will find out if you want that advantage after trying that 20-60 for a while.
 
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
 
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
The emphasis on MP in camera comparisons always bothers me. So let's talk pixel pitch:

The GFX pixel pitch is about 3.8 um; the BF about 5.9 um. That's 262 versus 169 l/mm sampling rate - a ratio of about 1.6X, not the 4X implied by the MP ratio.

So, just in terms of linear resolution, the GFX still wins.
 
Not obvious to me why these two particular cameras have struck your fancy as a competing pair for your love. They are very different in almost every respect. In fact, just about the only things that have in common is that they are new and somewhat quirky designs and both have a deliberate aesthetic design.

Surely you don't intend to part with a great deal of money just for the looks???
 
xpatUSA said:
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
The emphasis on MP in camera comparisons always bothers me. So let's talk pixel pitch:

The GFX pixel pitch is about 3.8 um; the BF about 5.9 um. That's 262 versus 169 l/mm sampling rate - a ratio of about 1.6X, not the 4X implied by the MP ratio.

So, just in terms of linear resolution, the GFX still wins.
Click to expand...
The idea that twice the pixel count = double the resolution is an old one that for a while got thoroughly debunked but now seems to have returned with a vengeance. Professional reviewers who should know better have fallen in line with this silly idea.

Even forgetting about the numerology for a moment, increases in pixel count seem to suffer from various diminishing returns. Once you get past a certain level of resolution is seems difficult to get significantly more simply by throwing pixels at the problem. Something seems to conspire to short-change expectations.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
 
Last edited:
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the different sensor aspect ratios?

For example, if you prefer 3:2 that would be quite a crop out of the GFX's 4:3 ...

--
What you got is not what you saw.
 
Last edited:
Not different in every aspect, they are small, RF style cameras with large sensor and excellent IQ.

Small, simple RF style camera with large sensor I'm after. You may suggest other alternatives.

Leica Q3 may in consideration, but tracking AF quite outdated. Only second hand because of price.

Panasonic S9 is good, but too plastic for my taste

A7C series has poor resolution articulating screen, I don't like articulating screen. I'd choose 2.1M dot fixed over 1M dot flippy.
 
Last edited:
xpatUSA said:
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the different sensor aspect ratios?

For example, if you prefer 3:2 that would be quite a crop out of the GFX's 4:3 ...
Click to expand...
 
saltydogstudios said:
xpatUSA said:
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the different sensor aspect ratios?

For example, if you prefer 3:2 that would be quite a crop out of the GFX's 4:3 ...
Click to expand...
As someone who shoots portraits, I do wish more cameras had a 4:3 aspect ratio (or 3:4 in portrait orient) since that’s closer to an 8x10 print or instagram size.

Visualizing a photo in 2:3 and then wanting to something with the image means adding white borders to compensate for the change in aspect ratio. (I don’t shoot beyond the frame for the purposes of cropping.)

This in and of itself makes a GFX attractive to me.

I wish more cameras manufacturers made selectable aspect ratios for JPGs and preview - in the mirrorless are it seems like a no brainer.
Click to expand...
I liked my GH1 with it's selectable aspect ratio at constant diagonal measure, both raw and JPEG.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1 scroll down to multi-aspect=ratio
 
Last edited:
I've considered to get a 40 2.5G for A7RV...
 
Last edited:
They are pretty comparable, but Fuji film simulations are very usable.
 
xpatUSA said:
saltydogstudios said:
xpatUSA said:
Lukacs85 said:
Now I'm on side of the BF.

I prefer brick design without moving parts and interchangeable lens option.

Even if I have huge cropping advantage on 100MP compared 24MP, I've thought through past days I rarely like cropping, because I just lose huge part of my sensor size. GFX100RF is no match for 50 f2 DN in crop mode, not because only APS-C surface, but the lens speed, F2 compared F6 equivalent, without stabilisation. Other problem there is no medium size raw option on GFX, so I'd have to deal 100MP raws with every single shot. And I rarely want 100MP resoluton, I'd use it for cropping due to fixed focal length. The GFX has advantage not thinking which lens pick to go out, and tilt screen and EVF become handy in lot of situations.

I have two deciding factor: I prefer BF simple, minimalist form, and I'd miss that f2 rendering.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the different sensor aspect ratios?

For example, if you prefer 3:2 that would be quite a crop out of the GFX's 4:3 ...
Click to expand...
As someone who shoots portraits, I do wish more cameras had a 4:3 aspect ratio (or 3:4 in portrait orient) since that’s closer to an 8x10 print or instagram size.

Visualizing a photo in 2:3 and then wanting to something with the image means adding white borders to compensate for the change in aspect ratio. (I don’t shoot beyond the frame for the purposes of cropping.)

This in and of itself makes a GFX attractive to me.

I wish more cameras manufacturers made selectable aspect ratios for JPGs and preview - in the mirrorless are it seems like a no brainer.
Click to expand...
I liked my GH1 with it's selectable aspect ratio at constant diagonal measure, both raw and JPEG.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1 scroll down to multi-aspect=ratio
Click to expand...
 
xpatUSA said:
xpatUSA said:
D Miller said:
If you can find a 70g lens, they'd even weight the same
Click to expand...
Lukacs85 wrote:

I've considered to get a 40 2.5G for A7RV...
Click to expand...
Wow, 2.5G is much lighter ... ;-)
Click to expand...
This is the lens he's talking about Ted:

https://www.adorama.com/iso4025.html

It's light, but a lot heavier than 70 grams.
xpatUSA said:
--
What you got is not what you saw.
Click to expand...
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com
https://www.sigmaphotopro.com
https://www.sigmacamerapro.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Bit of a Rant... MY ideal camera.
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
jhunna
J
B
I was able to test a Fuji GFX100RF vs a Leica Q3-43, Leica Q3, Fuji X100VI, Sony RX1RII
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
107K
Chitterfoot
Chitterfoot
J
One frustrating aspect of the X-E5
Replies
15
Views
3K
Lance St. Paul
L
Truman Prevatt
GFX100RF - a review of RAW samples
Replies
14
Views
3K
barkleytom
B
FujLiver
My new Fujifilm GFX100RF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
8K
jhunna
J

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top