Reading mode: Light Dark

Has a consensus now developed on the new GFX100RF?

Go to last post
DavidMillier said:
Most cameras offer some sort of choice of aspect ratio in camera. That's cropping. The RF just expands this offer to crops that mimic certain fields of view. It's no different.

I think every brand should offer a custom crop mode that is an aspect ratio adjuster. Turn the knob to left to narrow the left and right sides, turn the knob to the right to narrow the top and bottom thereby simultaneous providing any aspect ratio and any field of view crop with a single control.

All it does is change the viewfinder anyway. It's a compositional aid more than anything.
Click to expand...
For a compositional aid, I'd prefer adjustable lines in the finder, and no change to the image recorded.
 
DavidMillier said:
JimKasson said:
DavidMillier said:
This is a bit like a debate over whether a Ferrari is cheap because a Mcclaren is more expensive...
Click to expand...
I have a friend who was into mountain biking. Someone asked him how he could justify the admittedly large expenses for gear. He said: "It could be worse. I could be into airplanes, sailboats, or women other than my wife."
Click to expand...
I'm never convinced you can justify one (possibly) dubious thing by saying at least it's not as bad as other stuff I could do instead. That's more like a threat than a justification. makes for a good one liner though :-)
Click to expand...
More like perspective.
 
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Jim, this almost reads like you are arguing with yourself...
Click to expand...
The concept of a benefit implies a comparison, typically to some baseline, alternative, or prior state. For something to be identified as a benefit, it must provide an advantage, improvement, or gain relative to something else.

Examples:
  • “The benefit of this medication” implies it performs better than no medication or a different one.
  • “One benefit of working remotely is flexibility” assumes a comparison to on-site work.
  • “This lens design reduces spherical aberration, which is a benefit compared to the earlier version.”
Without comparison, explicit or implied, the word benefit loses its evaluative meaning.
Click to expand...
He said the benefit is "digital teleconverter". (I don't know if other GFX/MF cameras have this feature)

You changed the meaning to "cropping" and brought other cameras into conversation.
Click to expand...
Cropping is what a digital TC does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not all cameras can do digital TC in camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a benefit if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs, or if you have trouble visualizing cropping effects. Neither of those applies to me, so maybe I'm immune to that benefit. The only exception I can think of is if the publisher of the image requires a particular unusual aspect ratio. Then I used to use viewfinder masks. But I don't make images for other people's publications any more.
Click to expand...
Generally, I don't think it's the best plan to deliberately set out to waste expensive pixels by using digital zoom. It's better to change to a more appropriate lens....oh, you can't do that with the RF, can you.

Aspect ratio changes also waste those expensively purchased pixels, especially if you like square like I do, but you don't have a choice about the sensor you use, other than at the time of purchase. Still no one has come up with interchangeable sensors. Interchangeable cameras like Phase One backs have, is a similar but not quite the same, concept!
 
JimKasson said:
DavidMillier said:
Most cameras offer some sort of choice of aspect ratio in camera. That's cropping. The RF just expands this offer to crops that mimic certain fields of view. It's no different.

I think every brand should offer a custom crop mode that is an aspect ratio adjuster. Turn the knob to left to narrow the left and right sides, turn the knob to the right to narrow the top and bottom thereby simultaneous providing any aspect ratio and any field of view crop with a single control.

All it does is change the viewfinder anyway. It's a compositional aid more than anything.
Click to expand...
For a compositional aid, I'd prefer adjustable lines in the finder, and no change to the image recorded.
Click to expand...
We definitely disagree on this one.

I hated the fact that my A7Rii used a grid of lines to indicate aspect ratios rather than changing the screen. Just couldn't get used to it. Constantly counted the lines to figure out the boundaries. Got rid of it for this reason. The Riv has aspect ratios like every other camera (at last)! Bit of an expensive upgrade just for that, but it was upgrade or change brands.
 
jhunna said:
DavidMillier said:
I was speaking about many photographic related stuff with guys from my photographic group and they were showing their top end Nikon Z stuff. I asked them what they thought was the biggest benefit of the Z9/Z8 and they both said "cropping ability". Even more so with 100MP. I get that aspect, you can't always nail the composition or you change your mind later. The more pixels to hand, the better.
Click to expand...
I have read your posts on the cost of shooting, and I can empathize. But I don't know of a new setup that can get you 100MP captured in 1/4000 of a second for less than $5k. And I don't know of any that are as compact for that price. Granted, it is the price for early adopters, but if the used prices drop, I really think the RF will become a cult classic of sorts.

I agree that cropping is an aspect of shooting that I have only really started to enjoy (and that began with the A7CR, and the RF takes it to another level. I do print big, but the cropping is why I really enjoy these big MP cameras, and for now we have to pay.
jhunna said:
The in hand feel of cameras can be important and I don't think Sony have really sussed this aspect. Their cameras are a bit more gadget-like than some longer established brands.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. If the A7CR was in the RF's body, I would not have purchased the RF.
Click to expand...
I suspect Sony cameras are really still secretly hankering to make Walkman and minidisk players :-) Miniaturise it, whatever it is, make it smaller!

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
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:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Jim, this almost reads like you are arguing with yourself...
Click to expand...
The concept of a benefit implies a comparison, typically to some baseline, alternative, or prior state. For something to be identified as a benefit, it must provide an advantage, improvement, or gain relative to something else.

Examples:
  • “The benefit of this medication” implies it performs better than no medication or a different one.
  • “One benefit of working remotely is flexibility” assumes a comparison to on-site work.
  • “This lens design reduces spherical aberration, which is a benefit compared to the earlier version.”
Without comparison, explicit or implied, the word benefit loses its evaluative meaning.
Click to expand...
He said the benefit is "digital teleconverter". (I don't know if other GFX/MF cameras have this feature)

You changed the meaning to "cropping" and brought other cameras into conversation.
Click to expand...
Cropping is what a digital TC does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not all cameras can do digital TC in camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a benefit if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs, or if you have trouble visualizing cropping effects. Neither of those applies to me, so maybe I'm immune to that benefit. The only exception I can think of is if the publisher of the image requires a particular unusual aspect ratio. Then I used to use viewfinder masks. But I don't make images for other people's publications any more.
Click to expand...
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
 
Last edited:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Jim, this almost reads like you are arguing with yourself...
Click to expand...
The concept of a benefit implies a comparison, typically to some baseline, alternative, or prior state. For something to be identified as a benefit, it must provide an advantage, improvement, or gain relative to something else.

Examples:
  • “The benefit of this medication” implies it performs better than no medication or a different one.
  • “One benefit of working remotely is flexibility” assumes a comparison to on-site work.
  • “This lens design reduces spherical aberration, which is a benefit compared to the earlier version.”
Without comparison, explicit or implied, the word benefit loses its evaluative meaning.
Click to expand...
He said the benefit is "digital teleconverter". (I don't know if other GFX/MF cameras have this feature)

You changed the meaning to "cropping" and brought other cameras into conversation.
Click to expand...
Cropping is what a digital TC does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not all cameras can do digital TC in camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a benefit if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs, or if you have trouble visualizing cropping effects. Neither of those applies to me, so maybe I'm immune to that benefit. The only exception I can think of is if the publisher of the image requires a particular unusual aspect ratio. Then I used to use viewfinder masks. But I don't make images for other people's publications any more.
Click to expand...
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
Kids today, expecting everything instantly :-) :-) :-)
 
JimKasson said:
DavidMillier said:
Most cameras offer some sort of choice of aspect ratio in camera. That's cropping. The RF just expands this offer to crops that mimic certain fields of view. It's no different.

I think every brand should offer a custom crop mode that is an aspect ratio adjuster. Turn the knob to left to narrow the left and right sides, turn the knob to the right to narrow the top and bottom thereby simultaneous providing any aspect ratio and any field of view crop with a single control.

All it does is change the viewfinder anyway. It's a compositional aid more than anything.
Click to expand...
For a compositional aid, I'd prefer adjustable lines in the finder, and no change to the image recorded.
Click to expand...
You get this in the RF with teleconverter and aspect ratio dials.

I am still debating the value of the fully blacked out areas vs the lines, but there is merit in both techniques.
 
jhunna said:
John Jennings said:
Ignoring the hype, do photographers and credible reviewers have a consensus yet on this new, fixed lens model? Anyone care to attempt objectivity and boil it down for a FF user? Thank you for your concise thoughts. I see lots for sale on Fred Miranda.
Click to expand...
tldr; I enjoy the experience of the RF more than my other cameras.

You are not going to find a consensus because this camera doesn't fit nicely into a preexisting niche. It does so many things well if you only focus on one aspect you will not see the value that this camera provides. A few of the dichotomies:
  1. It is relatively expensive for a point and shoot.
  2. Some of its biggest features are related to in camera development, yet some see it as a waste of the MF sensor and 100MP.
  3. This camera is perfect for the hipster trend of small retro gear, but it is primarily being judged by MF photographers who use MF in a different way.
  4. It shoots incredible video and yet it is photocentric camera.
  5. It has every manual dial you could want and yet can be shot as a fully automatic camera.
I could go on, but those are the core aspects that will prevent the consensus from ever being formed, for at least five to ten years. I think in five to ten years this camera is going to be considered a classic, and as of today the world just isn't ready for it.
Click to expand...
I can't help but feel that a GFX version of the X-E5 would answer most criticisms of the RF.
 
jhunna said:
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
These days, when I'm just making images for myself, I'm shooting for a dozen images that I really like a year, and, if I'm lucky, persistent, diligent, and the stars align, one great one.
 
DavidMillier said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Jim, this almost reads like you are arguing with yourself...
Click to expand...
The concept of a benefit implies a comparison, typically to some baseline, alternative, or prior state. For something to be identified as a benefit, it must provide an advantage, improvement, or gain relative to something else.

Examples:
  • “The benefit of this medication” implies it performs better than no medication or a different one.
  • “One benefit of working remotely is flexibility” assumes a comparison to on-site work.
  • “This lens design reduces spherical aberration, which is a benefit compared to the earlier version.”
Without comparison, explicit or implied, the word benefit loses its evaluative meaning.
Click to expand...
He said the benefit is "digital teleconverter". (I don't know if other GFX/MF cameras have this feature)

You changed the meaning to "cropping" and brought other cameras into conversation.
Click to expand...
Cropping is what a digital TC does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not all cameras can do digital TC in camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a benefit if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs, or if you have trouble visualizing cropping effects. Neither of those applies to me, so maybe I'm immune to that benefit. The only exception I can think of is if the publisher of the image requires a particular unusual aspect ratio. Then I used to use viewfinder masks. But I don't make images for other people's publications any more.
Click to expand...
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
Kids today, expecting everything instantly :-) :-) :-)
Click to expand...
Truer words were never spoken. I take pictures of my kids sporting events, and the teams want pictures as soon as the event is over. I spend about 30 minutes in my truck processing the files on the phone, and then uploading them to an album for them to share. I kid you not, on some events, as soon as I share the photos there are 10-20 people viewing them within the first 30 minutes. Crazy...
 
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
DavidMillier said:
Most cameras offer some sort of choice of aspect ratio in camera. That's cropping. The RF just expands this offer to crops that mimic certain fields of view. It's no different.

I think every brand should offer a custom crop mode that is an aspect ratio adjuster. Turn the knob to left to narrow the left and right sides, turn the knob to the right to narrow the top and bottom thereby simultaneous providing any aspect ratio and any field of view crop with a single control.

All it does is change the viewfinder anyway. It's a compositional aid more than anything.
Click to expand...
For a compositional aid, I'd prefer adjustable lines in the finder, and no change to the image recorded.
Click to expand...
You get this in the RF with teleconverter and aspect ratio dials.

I am still debating the value of the fully blacked out areas vs the lines, but there is merit in both techniques.
Click to expand...
For me, the advantage of the lines is that I can see outside the frame, like with an M3.
 
JimKasson said:
DavidMillier said:
Most cameras offer some sort of choice of aspect ratio in camera. That's cropping. The RF just expands this offer to crops that mimic certain fields of view. It's no different.

I think every brand should offer a custom crop mode that is an aspect ratio adjuster. Turn the knob to left to narrow the left and right sides, turn the knob to the right to narrow the top and bottom thereby simultaneous providing any aspect ratio and any field of view crop with a single control.

All it does is change the viewfinder anyway. It's a compositional aid more than anything.
Click to expand...
For a compositional aid, I'd prefer adjustable lines in the finder, and no change to the image recorded.
Click to expand...
I like if the lines used when taking an image can be recalled in the post processor without modifying the raw. That is the case with most cameras
JimKasson said:
--
https://blog.kasson.com
Click to expand...
 
jjcha said:
jhunna said:
It has every manual dial you could want and yet can be shot as a fully automatic camera.
Click to expand...
There is no consensus. Believe it or not -- I wish the aspect ratio dial were a film sim dial!

I change my film sims once per shooting session. Depending on the scene, light, etc., at the beginning of the session, I choose a certain "film."

E.g., "Today looks like a Gold200 kinda day."

The Q menu on the GFX100RF is perfectly fine for this, don't get me wrong.

But the new dial on the X-E5 seems not bad at all for this (if you could only customize each setting instead of just 3).

You can't change your aspect ratios using the GFX100RF dial from the shooting position (i.e., without taking your eye away from framing your shot) anyway. So I mapped it to a command dial. So that dial goes unused.

If it were a film sim dial (with customizable recipes) instead, I'd actually have a use for it.

But I totally agree. Capabilities don't mean much to me for this camera. It's just fun and largely gets out of the way of my shooting. I am a natural 28mm shooter though.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of diversity of approach among photographers. I use GFX and X cameras and I've never changed a film sim in my life. If I want to do that I use a 3D lut in post. But even there all I do is switch between standard and B&W.

Seems to me that Film sims are not even really film sims, they are just contrast and saturation tweaks in camera for jpegs that have been given nostalgic film names for marketing purposes. It's not like anyone would mistake the velvia sim for the real thing.
 
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
These days, when I'm just making images for myself, I'm shooting for a dozen images that I really like a year, and, if I'm lucky, persistent, diligent, and the stars align, one great one.
Click to expand...
I shoot to document people and events, and if I get five to ten shots out of 500 that make me happy, it is a good day. I know myself, and I would never have the patience to get to the one great shot. I appreciate you sharing that, as it helps frame how a lot of people must use MF, vs how I use MF.
 
jhunna said:
DavidMillier said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Jim, this almost reads like you are arguing with yourself...
Click to expand...
The concept of a benefit implies a comparison, typically to some baseline, alternative, or prior state. For something to be identified as a benefit, it must provide an advantage, improvement, or gain relative to something else.

Examples:
  • “The benefit of this medication” implies it performs better than no medication or a different one.
  • “One benefit of working remotely is flexibility” assumes a comparison to on-site work.
  • “This lens design reduces spherical aberration, which is a benefit compared to the earlier version.”
Without comparison, explicit or implied, the word benefit loses its evaluative meaning.
Click to expand...
He said the benefit is "digital teleconverter". (I don't know if other GFX/MF cameras have this feature)

You changed the meaning to "cropping" and brought other cameras into conversation.
Click to expand...
Cropping is what a digital TC does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but not all cameras can do digital TC in camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's a benefit if you're shooting SOOC JPEGs, or if you have trouble visualizing cropping effects. Neither of those applies to me, so maybe I'm immune to that benefit. The only exception I can think of is if the publisher of the image requires a particular unusual aspect ratio. Then I used to use viewfinder masks. But I don't make images for other people's publications any more.
Click to expand...
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
Kids today, expecting everything instantly :-) :-) :-)
Click to expand...
Truer words were never spoken. I take pictures of my kids sporting events, and the teams want pictures as soon as the event is over. I spend about 30 minutes in my truck processing the files on the phone, and then uploading them to an album for them to share. I kid you not, on some events, as soon as I share the photos there are 10-20 people viewing them within the first 30 minutes. Crazy...
Click to expand...
I'm a bit impatient myself, but sometime it is days before I upload my files to my computer and review the files. Some photographers (Bruce Percy comes to mind) like to leave it weeks or even a year before reviewing the files to give themselves time to forget the emotions they experienced during the shoot and help make them more objective when assessing the images - seeing what is actually in the frames rather than what they might wish to be there.

I could never leave it that long, but a bit of space can help.
 
DavidMillier said:
I can't help but feel that a GFX version of the X-E5 would answer most criticisms of the RF.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the GFX 50R is? Other than the 100MP sensor, what else would you change?
 
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
JimKasson said:
Lukacs85 said:
For me the most benefit is the digital teleconverter.
Click to expand...
Every GFX made allows cropping. Actually, every MF camera allows cropping.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the GFX100RF is one of them.
Click to expand...
So the benefit that you're talking about applies to all MF cameras?
Click to expand...
Of course, but I've never considered them seriously because of size, weight, or price (Hasselblad). I don't want 33mm height sensor with plain shutter. Hasselblad AF as I know is weak for my needs, GFX has superior AF but I don't know ILCE performance with those glasses. RF is the edge of usability for me, does not cause frustration, but I can't accept inferior AF performance in speed, detection and tracking reliability.

Also the ability of zooming in with crop leveler make composing way easier, I also assigned a custom buttot at A7RV for APSC mode, it was really useful turning 35GM into a 50 f2 FF equivalent lens on apsc mode.
 
Last edited:
jhunna said:
JimKasson said:
jhunna said:
Understood. The professional users of MF have a totally different workflow than a lot us hobbyist. I utilize, comparatively speaking, incredibly fast workflows. I work hard to simplify getting exposure and WB in camera as accurately as possible. With the RF I can also focus on the composition and ratio in a way that was more difficult without a zoom lens. I can have a proper jpeg shared out with family and friends in less than 5 minutes. This is easy to do with a smart phone, BUT with the RF I still have a 100MP RAW file that I can change when I have more sophisticated tools.
Click to expand...
These days, when I'm just making images for myself, I'm shooting for a dozen images that I really like a year, and, if I'm lucky, persistent, diligent, and the stars align, one great one.
Click to expand...
I shoot to document people and events, and if I get five to ten shots out of 500 that make me happy, it is a good day. I know myself, and I would never have the patience to get to the one great shot. I appreciate you sharing that, as it helps frame how a lot of people must use MF, vs how I use MF.
Click to expand...
I adapted that goal from AA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
54K
Chitterfoot
Chitterfoot
FujLiver
My new Fujifilm GFX100RF
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
jhunna
J
J
Kipon Pentax 67 to G adapter (0.62 focal reducer)
Replies
7
Views
269
Alexander6x6
A
Truman Prevatt
GFX100RF - a review of RAW samples
Replies
14
Views
787
barkleytom
B
M
Should I stay or should I go (and where)? - Fujifilm vs. Panasonic vs. Nikon
Replies
6
Views
3K
Mephistopheles26
M

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