Has a consensus now developed on the new GFX100RF?

Jeff Biscuits said:

If you come at it from the medium format ground, it looks restrictive. It is restrictive. Of course it is. But it’s also small, incredibly nice to handle, discreet, and incredibly powerful. If you like 28mm equivalent, small and wieldy cameras, and highly detailed images, it is an absolute triumph.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

tex said:

DavidMillier said:

JimKasson said:

xtm said:

The consensus is that it's expensive.

Click to expand...

Of all the knocks on the GFX 100 RF, this is the one that resonates the least with me. It's a 100 MP MF camera with a lens for less than $5K.

Click to expand...

But even against the high prices of this high rez gear, it seems obvious that £5000 for a hobby camera, especially a fixed lens compact, is a bit insane.

Click to expand...

I'm not wealthy. I choose what I spend money on very carefully. Since this camera won't be used for my pro work, it goes into my personal work category, supporting my art practice and as a fantastic travel camera. Please don't call me insane.

Click to expand...

I didn't call you insane, I said the price was insane.

DavidMillier said:

I can think of a lot of other hobbies that cost a whole lot more: anything to do with cars or motorbikes, golf, boating, sailing, and much much more.

Click to expand...

Whataboutery. If I had a private jet it would cost me more than any camera. I don't have a private jet, so that justifies the purchase of any camera, no matter how silly the price. Good one.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

I've said this many a time before, despite being someone who has been ridiculously profligate in buying camera gear, I feel out of my depth in this forum because of the sheer ease with which some members simply dismiss incredibly expensive purchases as nothing.

Click to expand...

Please show me who here---or anywhere else for that matter---has dismissed this camera's cost or other NEW gear purchases as "nothing". I think this is a strange accusation, along with the "insane" comment.

Click to expand...

You don't have to explicitly say £5000 is not a large sum. It is clearly implied when someone lists £30,000 worth of camera gear they bought for their hobby that they are not short of a bob or concerned about spending it. It's not difficult to search the forum for clear statements about very large sums of money being spent in quite a casual manner. I'm not talking about instances where a very passionate photographer has spent 5 years scrimping and saving to get a needed camera. I'm talking about a forum where people make it very evident that multiple thousand pound purchases are not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with someone spending their money either, just that when you are apparently surrounded by people with means far outside the range of people you know in real life, it can be alienating. It makes me feel I've walked into first class by mistake.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

This is the medium format forum and medium format is therefore what is discussed, but honestly I do wonder exactly what percentage of forum users actually benefit from using a £5000 camera rather than a £300 camera.

Click to expand...

Why do you wonder? What does it matter to you?

Click to expand...

Obvious surely? Why throw money away on something that brings you no benefit (if it doesn't). I'm quite realistic about my own GFX purchase. It brought me none of the benefits I imagined or was told it would bring. Instead it brought me the unexpected and accidental benefit of proving to be an excellent camera for long exposures. Apart from that its superior image quality provides no benefits in the small print sizes I use. if it weren't for the LE quality, it would have been an unwise purchase for me. The knowledge that a device possesses superior image quality isn't much cop if you can never realise it in a print. It's just potential quality you'll never be able to take advantage of. Horses for courses and all that. So I wonder whether people really need the capabilities or are over-buying. Not that it matters what the motivation is, but it is interesting to speculate.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Throwing absurd amounts of money at cameras for moderate improvements is kind of daft.

Click to expand...

Now we're daft. This is pretty insulting.

Click to expand...

I doubt that you'll find many professional financial managers recommending the throwing away of large sums of money needlessly as a sound strategy.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Almost a disease I would have thought.

Click to expand...

Your accusations just get worse.

Click to expand...

Gambling is considered a disease of sorts. Some gamblers might argue it's a bit of fun. GAS maybe qualifies.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

I see from the statistics that even among older people (the ones more likely to buy expensive cameras), between 1/4 and 1/3rd of pensioners in the UK live solely off their state pension of £10k pa. £5000 is not cheap!

Click to expand...

This is an even stranger context, like saying that to a homeless person Indian take-away is expensive.

Click to expand...

No, it's a statement intended to assess what the general population might class as 'cheap'. Given expensive cameras tend to be bought by older people (more money, their big expenses days behind them, more time to save and so on), and given that up to 1/3rd of UK pensioners have an annual income only twice that of the price of the RF, do you think the consensus is likely to be that a camera that costs 50% of an annual income is cheap?

If you do, you have a different concept of cheap than I do.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

By all means buy expensive stuff if you need it for a specific purpose, but don't pretend it is cheap,

Click to expand...

Considering that this is, as Jim Kasson said, a 100mp medium format camera, one that comes with the lens, and kind of by definition in this category something manufactured in limited quantities and with evident special care---in comparison with other camera and lens combinations on the market at this high level---in that context it's something of a bargain.

Click to expand...

Something being somewhat of a bargain within the context of its market segment is very different from it being cheap. Realistically, it is an extremely expensive camera that is way beyond the means of the majority of the world's population. That doesn't classify it as cheap but as a luxury good for the wealthy. It maybe a bit of a bargain as a luxury good for the wealthy but that is something else.

DavidMillier said:

That it does not suit your needs or interests or opinions about value does not translate into your assertions being factual data about the camera and its value.

Click to expand...

Hypothetical: Let's find a way of putting it to the vote of the whole population of the UK: Do you think a £5000 camera is a bargain? What do you think the response would be?

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

When I look back over my camera buying life, all this expenditure seems faintly nuts. A £500 second hand Lumix G9 and a 14-140mm superzoom would have most likely have satisfied 99% of my lifetime photographic requirements. GAS and curiosity makes for a crazy attitude to spending, spending, spending...

Click to expand...

And so, one wonders why you are visiting and posting in this forum.

Click to expand...

See other reply for more on this one, but the short answer is that it has the most interesting posters of the forums. The m43 forum is obsessed with FF, the FF forums are obsessed with other brands or full of questions about how to fit the neckstrap. MF forum is interesting.

Click to expand...

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Truman Prevatt said:

I mentored a Command Master Sargent Sniper in photography and he mentored and coached me in my competitive shooting days. I made him a better photographer and he made me a better photographer along with a few first place prizes in my shooting hobby.

How did he make me a better photographer - his firearms coaching resulted in a much more stable platform and better photographic skill craft.

The key in both is proper technique - and amazedly enough hitting a bulls eye shot after shot in succession and hitting every image sharp and in focus are common skills. You get better at both by embracing the suck of missed shots or bad images and keep on training until the suck is not as bad and keep training more.

The worst habit one sees in both new shooters and new photographers is using only one eye, not synchronizing breathing with the trigger or shutter, to much pressure on trigger or shutter and the "chicken wing" off arm position. This will be the left arm for a photographer. It could be either for a rifle or hand gun. By that I mean when the left arm is open in the air like a chicken holding his wing out. That elbow should be planted firmly against the body for stability. Along with that, gun shooters practice and prefect what is know as "push-pull." That is the hand on the handle (in case of the camera the right hand on the camera) gives a slight push to to the other hand which provides resistance with a slight "pull." That provides stability in both cases.

https://photographybay.com/2009/12/07/4-principles-of-photography-marksmanship/

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-advice-marksmen-can-improve-your-photography-technique-378034

Click to expand...

Truman whadday reckon. This was my best at 1/8 sec from 5 shots 100Rf handheld standing utilising tilt screen : breathing technique synchronised with gentle single shutter press, arms tucked in natural for me, left leg comfortably in front leaning bracing on left leg a little as my right knee messed up a bit.

View attachment 1d48ea6872d146ccaecc58436b89acb3.jpg
Sweaty hands nervous standing 1/8 sec 100Rf focus on lenses as well as their printed labels utilising tilt screen. March in Fuji house of photography.

Click to expand...

super_claret said:

DavidMillier said:

tex said:

DavidMillier said:

JimKasson said:

xtm said:

The consensus is that it's expensive.

Click to expand...

Of all the knocks on the GFX 100 RF, this is the one that resonates the least with me. It's a 100 MP MF camera with a lens for less than $5K.

Click to expand...

But even against the high prices of this high rez gear, it seems obvious that £5000 for a hobby camera, especially a fixed lens compact, is a bit insane.

Click to expand...

I'm not wealthy. I choose what I spend money on very carefully. Since this camera won't be used for my pro work, it goes into my personal work category, supporting my art practice and as a fantastic travel camera. Please don't call me insane.

Click to expand...

I didn't call you insane, I said the price was insane.

super_claret said:

I can think of a lot of other hobbies that cost a whole lot more: anything to do with cars or motorbikes, golf, boating, sailing, and much much more.

Click to expand...

Whataboutery. If I had a private jet it would cost me more than any camera. I don't have a private jet, so that justifies the purchase of any camera, no matter how silly the price. Good one.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

I've said this many a time before, despite being someone who has been ridiculously profligate in buying camera gear, I feel out of my depth in this forum because of the sheer ease with which some members simply dismiss incredibly expensive purchases as nothing.

Click to expand...

Please show me who here---or anywhere else for that matter---has dismissed this camera's cost or other NEW gear purchases as "nothing". I think this is a strange accusation, along with the "insane" comment.

Click to expand...

You don't have to explicitly say £5000 is not a large sum. It is clearly implied when someone lists £30,000 worth of camera gear they bought for their hobby that they are not short of a bob or concerned about spending it. It's not difficult to search the forum for clear statements about very large sums of money being spent in quite a casual manner. I'm not talking about instances where a very passionate photographer has spent 5 years scrimping and saving to get a needed camera. I'm talking about a forum where people make it very evident that multiple thousand pound purchases are not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with someone spending their money either, just that when you are apparently surrounded by people with means far outside the range of people you know in real life, it can be alienating. It makes me feel I've walked into first class by mistake.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

This is the medium format forum and medium format is therefore what is discussed, but honestly I do wonder exactly what percentage of forum users actually benefit from using a £5000 camera rather than a £300 camera.

Click to expand...

Why do you wonder? What does it matter to you?

Click to expand...

Obvious surely? Why throw money away on something that brings you no benefit (if it doesn't). I'm quite realistic about my own GFX purchase. It brought me none of the benefits I imagined or was told it would bring. Instead it brought me the unexpected and accidental benefit of proving to be an excellent camera for long exposures. Apart from that its superior image quality provides no benefits in the small print sizes I use. if it weren't for the LE quality, it would have been an unwise purchase for me. The knowledge that a device possesses superior image quality isn't much cop if you can never realise it in a print. It's just potential quality you'll never be able to take advantage of. Horses for courses and all that. So I wonder whether people really need the capabilities or are over-buying. Not that it matters what the motivation is, but it is interesting to speculate.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

Throwing absurd amounts of money at cameras for moderate improvements is kind of daft.

Click to expand...

Now we're daft. This is pretty insulting.

Click to expand...

I doubt that you'll find many professional financial managers recommending the throwing away of large sums of money needlessly as a sound strategy.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

Almost a disease I would have thought.

Click to expand...

Your accusations just get worse.

Click to expand...

Gambling is considered a disease of sorts. Some gamblers might argue it's a bit of fun. GAS maybe qualifies.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

I see from the statistics that even among older people (the ones more likely to buy expensive cameras), between 1/4 and 1/3rd of pensioners in the UK live solely off their state pension of £10k pa. £5000 is not cheap!

Click to expand...

This is an even stranger context, like saying that to a homeless person Indian take-away is expensive.

Click to expand...

No, it's a statement intended to assess what the general population might class as 'cheap'. Given expensive cameras tend to be bought by older people (more money, their big expenses days behind them, more time to save and so on), and given that up to 1/3rd of UK pensioners have an annual income only twice that of the price of the RF, do you think the consensus is likely to be that a camera that costs 50% of an annual income is cheap?

If you do, you have a different concept of cheap than I do.

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

By all means buy expensive stuff if you need it for a specific purpose, but don't pretend it is cheap,

Click to expand...

Considering that this is, as Jim Kasson said, a 100mp medium format camera, one that comes with the lens, and kind of by definition in this category something manufactured in limited quantities and with evident special care---in comparison with other camera and lens combinations on the market at this high level---in that context it's something of a bargain.

Click to expand...

Something being somewhat of a bargain within the context of its market segment is very different from it being cheap. Realistically, it is an extremely expensive camera that is way beyond the means of the majority of the world's population. That doesn't classify it as cheap but as a luxury good for the wealthy. It maybe a bit of a bargain as a luxury good for the wealthy but that is something else.

super_claret said:

That it does not suit your needs or interests or opinions about value does not translate into your assertions being factual data about the camera and its value.

Click to expand...

Hypothetical: Let's find a way of putting it to the vote of the whole population of the UK: Do you think a £5000 camera is a bargain? What do you think the response would be?

super_claret said:

super_claret said:

When I look back over my camera buying life, all this expenditure seems faintly nuts. A £500 second hand Lumix G9 and a 14-140mm superzoom would have most likely have satisfied 99% of my lifetime photographic requirements. GAS and curiosity makes for a crazy attitude to spending, spending, spending...

Click to expand...

And so, one wonders why you are visiting and posting in this forum.

Click to expand...

See other reply for more on this one, but the short answer is that it has the most interesting posters of the forums. The m43 forum is obsessed with FF, the FF forums are obsessed with other brands or full of questions about how to fit the neckstrap. MF forum is interesting.

Click to expand...

David

Why on earth do you spend so much time writing on an internet forum about a camera that doesn’t appeal to you?

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

super_claret said:

DavidMillier said:

tex said:

DavidMillier said:

JimKasson said:

xtm said:

The consensus is that it's expensive.

Click to expand...

Of all the knocks on the GFX 100 RF, this is the one that resonates the least with me. It's a 100 MP MF camera with a lens for less than $5K.

Click to expand...

But even against the high prices of this high rez gear, it seems obvious that £5000 for a hobby camera, especially a fixed lens compact, is a bit insane.

Click to expand...

I'm not wealthy. I choose what I spend money on very carefully. Since this camera won't be used for my pro work, it goes into my personal work category, supporting my art practice and as a fantastic travel camera. Please don't call me insane.

Click to expand...

I didn't call you insane, I said the price was insane.

DavidMillier said:

I can think of a lot of other hobbies that cost a whole lot more: anything to do with cars or motorbikes, golf, boating, sailing, and much much more.

Click to expand...

Whataboutery. If I had a private jet it would cost me more than any camera. I don't have a private jet, so that justifies the purchase of any camera, no matter how silly the price. Good one.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

I've said this many a time before, despite being someone who has been ridiculously profligate in buying camera gear, I feel out of my depth in this forum because of the sheer ease with which some members simply dismiss incredibly expensive purchases as nothing.

Click to expand...

Please show me who here---or anywhere else for that matter---has dismissed this camera's cost or other NEW gear purchases as "nothing". I think this is a strange accusation, along with the "insane" comment.

Click to expand...

You don't have to explicitly say £5000 is not a large sum. It is clearly implied when someone lists £30,000 worth of camera gear they bought for their hobby that they are not short of a bob or concerned about spending it. It's not difficult to search the forum for clear statements about very large sums of money being spent in quite a casual manner. I'm not talking about instances where a very passionate photographer has spent 5 years scrimping and saving to get a needed camera. I'm talking about a forum where people make it very evident that multiple thousand pound purchases are not once-in-a-lifetime events.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with someone spending their money either, just that when you are apparently surrounded by people with means far outside the range of people you know in real life, it can be alienating. It makes me feel I've walked into first class by mistake.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

This is the medium format forum and medium format is therefore what is discussed, but honestly I do wonder exactly what percentage of forum users actually benefit from using a £5000 camera rather than a £300 camera.

Click to expand...

Why do you wonder? What does it matter to you?

Click to expand...

Obvious surely? Why throw money away on something that brings you no benefit (if it doesn't). I'm quite realistic about my own GFX purchase. It brought me none of the benefits I imagined or was told it would bring. Instead it brought me the unexpected and accidental benefit of proving to be an excellent camera for long exposures. Apart from that its superior image quality provides no benefits in the small print sizes I use. if it weren't for the LE quality, it would have been an unwise purchase for me. The knowledge that a device possesses superior image quality isn't much cop if you can never realise it in a print. It's just potential quality you'll never be able to take advantage of. Horses for courses and all that. So I wonder whether people really need the capabilities or are over-buying. Not that it matters what the motivation is, but it is interesting to speculate.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Throwing absurd amounts of money at cameras for moderate improvements is kind of daft.

Click to expand...

Now we're daft. This is pretty insulting.

Click to expand...

I doubt that you'll find many professional financial managers recommending the throwing away of large sums of money needlessly as a sound strategy.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

Almost a disease I would have thought.

Click to expand...

Your accusations just get worse.

Click to expand...

Gambling is considered a disease of sorts. Some gamblers might argue it's a bit of fun. GAS maybe qualifies.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

I see from the statistics that even among older people (the ones more likely to buy expensive cameras), between 1/4 and 1/3rd of pensioners in the UK live solely off their state pension of £10k pa. £5000 is not cheap!

Click to expand...

This is an even stranger context, like saying that to a homeless person Indian take-away is expensive.

Click to expand...

No, it's a statement intended to assess what the general population might class as 'cheap'. Given expensive cameras tend to be bought by older people (more money, their big expenses days behind them, more time to save and so on), and given that up to 1/3rd of UK pensioners have an annual income only twice that of the price of the RF, do you think the consensus is likely to be that a camera that costs 50% of an annual income is cheap?

If you do, you have a different concept of cheap than I do.

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

By all means buy expensive stuff if you need it for a specific purpose, but don't pretend it is cheap,

Click to expand...

Considering that this is, as Jim Kasson said, a 100mp medium format camera, one that comes with the lens, and kind of by definition in this category something manufactured in limited quantities and with evident special care---in comparison with other camera and lens combinations on the market at this high level---in that context it's something of a bargain.

Click to expand...

Something being somewhat of a bargain within the context of its market segment is very different from it being cheap. Realistically, it is an extremely expensive camera that is way beyond the means of the majority of the world's population. That doesn't classify it as cheap but as a luxury good for the wealthy. It maybe a bit of a bargain as a luxury good for the wealthy but that is something else.

DavidMillier said:

That it does not suit your needs or interests or opinions about value does not translate into your assertions being factual data about the camera and its value.

Click to expand...

Hypothetical: Let's find a way of putting it to the vote of the whole population of the UK: Do you think a £5000 camera is a bargain? What do you think the response would be?

DavidMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

When I look back over my camera buying life, all this expenditure seems faintly nuts. A £500 second hand Lumix G9 and a 14-140mm superzoom would have most likely have satisfied 99% of my lifetime photographic requirements. GAS and curiosity makes for a crazy attitude to spending, spending, spending...

Click to expand...

And so, one wonders why you are visiting and posting in this forum.

Click to expand...

See other reply for more on this one, but the short answer is that it has the most interesting posters of the forums. The m43 forum is obsessed with FF, the FF forums are obsessed with other brands or full of questions about how to fit the neckstrap. MF forum is interesting.

Click to expand...

David

Why on earth do you spend so much time writing on an internet forum about a camera that doesn’t appeal to you?

Click to expand...

Answered enough questions in this post already thanks

Click to expand...

Stan Disbrow said:

One of my hobbies is Amateur Radio.

Stan

Click to expand...

• Great camera over all, build quality is amazing
• Size is incredible. Its tiny.
• Autofocus is much better than I expected, particularly compared to the rest of the GFX range
• Framing dial works really well. I wasn't sure I would like it but it's my favourite feature
• Image quality (Sensor/Lens) is amazing. I can essentially shoot macro at 20MP and the lens is very sharp at f4
• Low light is better than I expected (and there is a nice flash coming out called the IT30 Pro which will solve any low light issues)

• No dedicated charger, you have to charger in camera or buy a $70 charger. For the price, they could have included a charger
• The filter the give you with the camera is black, they have a silver one available, why wouldn't you include the silver one with the silver camera? Leica wouldn't make that mistake
• Questionable ergonomics due to all the dials, zoom lever etc- I bought the IDS grip and Leica finger loop and that helped a lot
• Hood design leaves some face palm moments - It can be run with a small lens cap or hood. You need the square hood if you use the filter. If you want to run it without the hood, you can't use the filter as the lens cap doesn't fit.
• The process of aligning functions to the front and rear dials shows a lack of attention to detail. You have to put compensation on C, Aperture on A, Shutter on T? They are all different? Why?

theoverratedphotog said:

I've been a bit critical with some of the negatives, none of them are show stoppers, but I think Fujifilm could have done better.

Positives

• Great camera over all, build quality is amazing
• Size is incredible. Its tiny.
• Autofocus is much better than I expected, particularly compared to the rest of the GFX range

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

• Framing dial works really well. I wasn't sure I would like it but it's my favourite feature
• Image quality (Sensor/Lens) is amazing. I can essentially shoot macro at 20MP and the lens is very sharp at f4
• Low light is better than I expected (and there is a nice flash coming out called the IT30 Pro which will solve any low light issues)

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

Negatives/Criticisms

• No dedicated charger, you have to charger in camera or buy a $70 charger. For the price, they could have included a charger

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

• The filter the give you with the camera is black, they have a silver one available,

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

• why wouldn't you include the silver one with the silver camera? Leica wouldn't make that mistake
• Questionable ergonomics due to all the dials, zoom lever etc- I bought the IDS grip and Leica finger loop and that helped a lot

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

• Hood design leaves some face palm moments - It can be run with a small lens cap or hood. You need the square hood if you use the filter. If you want to run it without the hood, you can't use the filter as the lens cap doesn't fit.

Click to expand...

theoverratedphotog said:

• The process of aligning functions to the front and rear dials shows a lack of attention to detail. You have to put compensation on C, Aperture on A, Shutter on T? They are all different? Why?

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany said:

Truman Prevatt said:

I mentored a Command Master Sargent Sniper in photography and he mentored and coached me in my competitive shooting days. I made him a better photographer and he made me a better photographer along with a few first place prizes in my shooting hobby.

How did he make me a better photographer - his firearms coaching resulted in a much more stable platform and better photographic skill craft.

The key in both is proper technique - and amazedly enough hitting a bulls eye shot after shot in succession and hitting every image sharp and in focus are common skills. You get better at both by embracing the suck of missed shots or bad images and keep on training until the suck is not as bad and keep training more.

The worst habit one sees in both new shooters and new photographers is using only one eye, not synchronizing breathing with the trigger or shutter, to much pressure on trigger or shutter and the "chicken wing" off arm position. This will be the left arm for a photographer. It could be either for a rifle or hand gun. By that I mean when the left arm is open in the air like a chicken holding his wing out. That elbow should be planted firmly against the body for stability. Along with that, gun shooters practice and prefect what is know as "push-pull." That is the hand on the handle (in case of the camera the right hand on the camera) gives a slight push to to the other hand which provides resistance with a slight "pull." That provides stability in both cases.

https://photographybay.com/2009/12/07/4-principles-of-photography-marksmanship/

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-advice-marksmen-can-improve-your-photography-technique-378034

Click to expand...

Truman whadday reckon. This was my best at 1/8 sec from 5 shots 100Rf handheld standing utilising tilt screen : breathing technique synchronised with gentle single shutter press, arms tucked in natural for me, left leg comfortably in front leaning bracing on left leg a little as my right knee messed up a bit.

View attachment 1d48ea6872d146ccaecc58436b89acb3.jpg
Sweaty hands nervous standing 1/8 sec 100Rf focus on lenses as well as their printed labels utilising tilt screen. March in Fuji house of photography.

Click to expand...

All i can say is Excellent!

Click to expand...

Singingsnapper said:

Fuji GFX100RF

1/4 f/14 ISO 80 (handheld)

Click to expand...

Noddemix said:

tex said:

Matt2134 said:

There are lots of happy users.

Click to expand...

I think so, yes. I am one of them.

Noddemix said:

Most negativity seems to come from spec sheet readers rather than owners,

Click to expand...

Not so fast. Two of the sternest critics on this forum are owners. But indeed a lot are people who made up their minds the second they read the specs.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion based on specs or sample files, otherwise we'd be buying and returning cameras all over the place. Indeed the camera's limitations are exactly what I expected having read the spec sheet.

The camera only works for me in a scenario where there's plenty of light and I don't fancy carrying something bigger. What I've found is that the difference in size/weight between the 50S II/GF 35-70 or Pentax 75mm and the RF is negligible in practice, in relation to my circumstances. I'm 42 years old, fairly strong and think nothing of carrying the 50S II + GF 120mm all day using only a wrist strap. So far I've made <200 exposures with the RF.

The lens is fine but not outstanding, the sensor I'm familiar with as I own 100MP GFX bodies, the form factor is convenient, but I nonetheless have absolutely no idea why anybody would pick this camera to use in low light conditions or if compactness was a determining factor. A Sony A7R/A7RC with its IBIS and one of any number of available fast compact lenses would be preferable IMO.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

JimKasson said:

xtm said:

The consensus is that it's expensive.

Click to expand...

Of all the knocks on the GFX 100 RF, this is the one that resonates the least with me. It's a 100 MP MF camera with a lens for less than $5K.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh at the financial attitude in this forum sometimes.

In terms of gear purchased by hobby photographers (rather than as business purchases), it is possible to obtain a wide range of very high quality gear that can satisfy any reasonable requirements for affordable prices. Therefore, against that background of the wide availability of well priced gear, In my world, any camera that costs over £300 is expensive.

I've bought more than my fair share of cameras, over the years including expensive ones.

Expensive cameras I have bought in the last 25 years:

• 1999 Nikon Coolpix CP 950 £450 (the most expensive camera I ever owned at the time)
• 2000 Olympus E10 £1200 (the most expensive camera I ever owned at the time)
• 2002 Nikon D100 £1643 (The most expensive camera I ever owned at the time)
• 2004 Kodak 14n £2300 (The most expensive camera I have ever owned ever).

All the above were essentially early adopter purchases during the shift to digital, hence the absurd prices. I justify it because digital transformed photography for me.

Between 2004 and 2024, my camera purchases were typically much more reasonably priced eg:

• X10 £225
• X-T1 £275
• X-T100 £254
• GX7 £139
• G9 £600

This was a period in which digital cameras matured and the second hand market came into its own, and it no longer became absurdly expensive to own good quality cameras. All these cameras represent incredible capability and value compared to the early gear and is the kind of gear that gets the job done without serious complaint.

Two recent purchases saw a hike in price again as I moved up to high resolution cameras, possible because I temporarily came into a bit of money:

• 2022 GFX50s (£1800) Funded by windfall
• 2024 A7Riv (£1749) Funded by windfall

But even against the high prices of this high rez gear, it seems obvious that £5000 for a hobby camera, especially a fixed lens compact, is a bit insane.

It is hugely more expensive than many affordable cameras, while being quite a limited camera. There is a significant image quality improvement between a £254 X-T100 and a £5000 GFX100RF, of course, but who actually really benefits from the actual quality improvement. Very few I would suggest beyond those who printing very large. A couple of guys from my photo group came around this week and I showed them my LRPS prints. They were unable to guess which came from m43 and which were medium format. Therefore, the utility is not remotely commensurate with the price increase over the bread and butter cameras I mention.

I've said this many a time before, despite being someone who has been ridiculously profligate in buying camera gear, I feel out of my depth in this forum because of the sheer ease with which some members simply dismiss incredibly expensive purchases as nothing. £5000 for a compact camera should be accepted as representing a pure luxury purchase for rich people, not value for money.

This is the medium format forum and medium format is therefore what is discussed, but honestly I do wonder exactly what percentage of forum users actually benefit from using a £5000 camera rather than a £300 camera.

I love doing photography with all my heart and I'm not sensible enough to stop buying cameras, but I am realistic enough to understand exactly what extra benefits different cameras, especially higher priced ones, bring over cheaper gear. Not very much in practice, actually. Things got good enough for most purposes a long time ago.

Throwing absurd amounts of money at cameras for moderate improvements is kind of daft. Almost a disease I would have thought.I see from the statistics that even among older people (the ones more likely to buy expensive cameras), between 1/4 and 1/3rd of pensioners in the UK live solely off their state pension of £10k pa. £5000 is not cheap!

By all means buy expensive stuff if you need it for a specific purpose, but don't pretend it is cheap, please! I'm pretty sure that if by some quirk of fate I became a millionaire I wouldn't suddenly change my mind on value. This is a bit like a debate over whether a Ferrari is cheap because a Mcclaren is more expensive...

When I look back over my camera buying life, all this expenditure seems faintly nuts. A £500 second hand Lumix G9 and a 14-140mm superzoom would have most likely have satisfied 99% of my lifetime photographic requirements. GAS and curiosity makes for a crazy attitude to spending, spending, spending...

Click to expand...

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...

DavidMillier said:

Time to be silent for a bit, I think

Click to expand...

emdundronald 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...

I sold a bunch of prints made with a Canon 1Ds back in the day, and selfprinted with an inkjet, so I guess 10MP is my own pain point. Just about any modern camera hi-rez can crop down to 10MP, and all the old MF ones too, given a decent lens.

Can the RF crop down from a crop ie 3x zoom? Not so obvious. Maybe not.

Edmund

-

Click to expand...

emdundronald said:

Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Click to expand...

Singingsnapper said:

Noddemix said:

tex said:

Matt2134 said:

There are lots of happy users.

Click to expand...

I think so, yes. I am one of them.

Singingsnapper said:

Most negativity seems to come from spec sheet readers rather than owners,

Click to expand...

Not so fast. Two of the sternest critics on this forum are owners. But indeed a lot are people who made up their minds the second they read the specs.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion based on specs or sample files, otherwise we'd be buying and returning cameras all over the place. Indeed the camera's limitations are exactly what I expected having read the spec sheet.

The camera only works for me in a scenario where there's plenty of light and I don't fancy carrying something bigger. What I've found is that the difference in size/weight between the 50S II/GF 35-70 or Pentax 75mm and the RF is negligible in practice, in relation to my circumstances. I'm 42 years old, fairly strong and think nothing of carrying the 50S II + GF 120mm all day using only a wrist strap. So far I've made <200 exposures with the RF.

The lens is fine but not outstanding, the sensor I'm familiar with as I own 100MP GFX bodies, the form factor is convenient, but I nonetheless have absolutely no idea why anybody would pick this camera to use in low light conditions or if compactness was a determining factor. A Sony A7R/A7RC with its IBIS and one of any number of available fast compact lenses would be preferable IMO.

Click to expand...

I will have to test that out when I'm back home from Madrid. I have the 100II and the 35 - 70. The s and sii are both smaller than the ii but not massively so. I'd say the size difference especially without the hood is significant.

It's a fantastic travel camera and very inconspicuous. I have my 100II with me with the 20 - 35 with me but didn't take it into the city with me yesterday. This shot isn't as slow a shutter speed as my 1/4 on the waterfall, but is 1/20 with an ISO of 3200.



The RF will take some of the weight off my 100II. When I looked at the spec sheet, I was unconvinced, but short of playing Top Trumps, I love the camera.

Click to expand...