It is NOT digital zoom, it is...

[UsherFellig]

I've predicted since the specs began emerging that the camera would be excellent used like a Hassie SWC 903, as with the Plaubel Makina analogy. That is, making use of its full medium-format sensor with little to no cropping. With a tripod, IMHO. For prints or for reveling in the blow-ups on one's super-hi-def-monitor screen. This of course would match best with people who like the 28mm equivalent field of view, which is its sole focal length to use the full sensor.

But at the same time I've also noted that it's clear Fuji sees part of its target market for this camera as shoppers who will use it as you contemplate, whether you call it a "zoom" or not. You have every right to acquire and enjoy it that way, and posters here have actually wished you well with it. OTOH, other consumers are going to pass on that use-case as they have every right to do. Why make your preference into a campaign?

 

[jturn00]

Fuji knows in camera developing is what makes Fuji their money; through the use of simulated film stocks, simulated camera sensor ratios, simulated zoom, etc.

I question this assertion.

Why? Do a search on Fuji and you will see the reason why they are popular is because Instax, the retro design, and the film simulations that let people "just take pictures and share". And now they have a MF camera that can do the same for the average person.

I thought we were talking about Fuji MF users. I'm having a hard time understanding why somebody who just wants to take pictures and share without any post processing would want with an MF camera.

For me it's about being able to get from 28-almost 80mm with in camera "cropping" AND not having to change a lens. I just did a short family trip with xpro2 and 35mm . Never had time or patience to pull out the 23mm. (Didn't have the 18-55 on it either). I also found that the MF has aspect ratios that can give me a panoramic look. I was actually taking a photo with xpro2, then switching to my iPhone. Imagine being able to do all that with the flick of a dial.

Add film simulations and I have everything I need in one camera.

** In my research the x100 VI can do some of this but needs teleconverters. The Leica Q3 also seems like a good candidate but I'm not too sure on the film simulations and cropping has a lower Megapixel count. And it costs much more. I could be convinced to spend the extra $$ but at that point, I can get a M5 and throw on my existing zoom lens for video/sports.

I have never used and in-camera developing except for testing, and I don't know of anybody who routinely uses it. Maybe there are a lot of in-camera developing afficionados out there, but from all the posts here about developing, there are a lot of people like me.

Have you ever needed to upload photos or videos in real time to people who were waiting?

Yes, but not for anything that needed an MF camera.

I do it all the time, so I love the ability to develop/compose either in camera or on my phone. Think about this for a moment, with this much resolution, and with this wide angle lens, I can take a picture of a single team, and then cut out 2, 3, 4 pictures from that one shot. I do this with my a7cr right now (but I have to move the file to the phone first).

By the way, that's not a knock on the camera. I wish I had a good use for it so that I could buy one.

I didn't see it as a knock. I am a dad with active kids who have grandparents that like to see the kids in almost real time. So composing on the fly for THEIR eyes, is important. I used to use a zoom, now I will use this knowing I can go down to a 4k resolution jpeg and still have a quality shot to send. Heck I may even want to shrink it so that it is even easier to send.

 

[AndyGordon]

You’ve made the implicit assumption that the people on the forum don’t understand that there may be subjective satisfaction associated with the 100RF, and that if you keep repeating your opinions, eventually they will understand.

I believe you are incorrect in your base assumption. It’s not that the people you are referencing don’t understand your points. They understand and despite this believe that on balance the camera’s benefits don’t outweigh the trade-offs, costs, etc.

That conflicts with Jim's quote above.

I’ve already said that I like the camera, and were my physical situation different, I would buy one. I view it as an updated Plaubel Makina, a camera that I loved. But if I used it, I would use it the same way as the 67 camera, and try to fill the frame.

I think that's a very good analogy.

snipped...

But at least they've spent 5.5k on a camera they don't really understand while complaining that they're unable to persuade others of their subjective satisfaction that may come from a camera that they've never owned or worked with...

Who says they don't understand? Just because you and others believe that cropping may be a 'bad' thing because you loose DR and MP, doesn't invalidate others who take an entirely different perspective. I've literally just got back from photographing sunset / post sunset shots which will be cropped - longest lens I have is the 100-200 so the image will be cropped by intention, ratio will be cropped from 4:3 to 1:1 and the file will probably go into Affinity for some selective curve adjustments, so god knows what that does to the DR after all that, but what I will get is a good image, not the best, but good enough to enjoy. Key point is that cropping and ratio changes were critical to what I wanted, DR goes by the wayside as do MP, so all this kind of makes a lot of the discussion a bit mute.

lf I had an100RF and the aspect ratio I wanted was 1:1 and a 45mm fov then cropping I would do, deliberately, just as I did tonight with an ILC GFX and a lens that wasnt long enough for what I wanted and a different aspect ratio.

As far as I recall that has been a part of photography since I was just out of short trousers

 

[Crispy_Bee]

You’ve made the implicit assumption that the people on the forum don’t understand that there may be subjective satisfaction associated with the 100RF, and that if you keep repeating your opinions, eventually they will understand.

I believe you are incorrect in your base assumption. It’s not that the people you are referencing don’t understand your points. They understand and despite this believe that on balance the camera’s benefits don’t outweigh the trade-offs, costs, etc.

That conflicts with Jim's quote above.

I’ve already said that I like the camera, and were my physical situation different, I would buy one. I view it as an updated Plaubel Makina, a camera that I loved. But if I used it, I would use it the same way as the 67 camera, and try to fill the frame.

I think that's a very good analogy.

snipped...

But at least they've spent 5.5k on a camera they don't really understand while complaining that they're unable to persuade others of their subjective satisfaction that may come from a camera that they've never owned or worked with...

Who says they don't understand? Just because you and others believe that cropping may be a 'bad' thing because you loose DR and MP, doesn't invalidate others who take an entirely different perspective. I've literally just got back from photographing sunset / post sunset shots which will be cropped - longest lens I have is the 100-200 so the image will be cropped by intention, ratio will be cropped from 4:3 to 1:1 and the file will probably go into Affinity for some selective curve adjustments, so god knows what that does to the DR after all that, but what I will get is a good image, not the best, but good enough to enjoy. Key point is that cropping and ratio changes were critical to what I wanted, DR goes by the wayside as do MP, so all this kind of makes a lot of the discussion a bit mute.

lf I had an100RF and the aspect ratio I wanted was 1:1 and a 45mm fov then cropping I would do, deliberately, just as I did tonight with an ILC GFX and a lens that wasnt long enough for what I wanted and a different aspect ratio.

As far as I recall that has been a part of photography since I was just out of short trousers

I've given specific examples regarding the expectations people have (had) concerning the depth of field when cropping, non-existing functionality like pixel-shift and non-realistic expectations regarding cropping (hand-held without IBIS or OS) and the impact that will have when combined with high ISO and how much of the image quality will be retained when all is said and done.
If you think 100-200mm isn't enough, good luck with the 35mm.

I'm fairly certain some people will like it but I'm always weary and skeptical of new gear that people praise before using it on a regular basis for real subjects.

 

[Doppler9000]

People are passionate about their opinions on the 100RF.

We have strayed into language that is inappropriate for the forum.

So, please, let us continue in a collegial manner.

Doppler, as Mod.

 

[jhunna]

You’ve made the implicit assumption that the people on the forum don’t understand that there may be subjective satisfaction associated with the 100RF, and that if you keep repeating your opinions, eventually they will understand.

I believe you are incorrect in your base assumption. It’s not that the people you are referencing don’t understand your points. They understand and despite this believe that on balance the camera’s benefits don’t outweigh the trade-offs, costs, etc.

That conflicts with Jim's quote above.

I’ve already said that I like the camera, and were my physical situation different, I would buy one. I view it as an updated Plaubel Makina, a camera that I loved. But if I used it, I would use it the same way as the 67 camera, and try to fill the frame.

I think that's a very good analogy.

snipped...

But at least they've spent 5.5k on a camera they don't really understand while complaining that they're unable to persuade others of their subjective satisfaction that may come from a camera that they've never owned or worked with...

Who says they don't understand? Just because you and others believe that cropping may be a 'bad' thing because you loose DR and MP, doesn't invalidate others who take an entirely different perspective. I've literally just got back from photographing sunset / post sunset shots which will be cropped - longest lens I have is the 100-200 so the image will be cropped by intention, ratio will be cropped from 4:3 to 1:1 and the file will probably go into Affinity for some selective curve adjustments, so god knows what that does to the DR after all that, but what I will get is a good image, not the best, but good enough to enjoy. Key point is that cropping and ratio changes were critical to what I wanted, DR goes by the wayside as do MP, so all this kind of makes a lot of the discussion a bit mute.

lf I had an100RF and the aspect ratio I wanted was 1:1 and a 45mm fov then cropping I would do, deliberately, just as I did tonight with an ILC GFX and a lens that wasnt long enough for what I wanted and a different aspect ratio.

As far as I recall that has been a part of photography since I was just out of short trousers

I've given specific examples regarding the expectations people have (had) concerning the depth of field when cropping, non-existing functionality like pixel-shift and non-realistic expectations regarding cropping (hand-held without IBIS or OS) and the impact that will have when combined with high ISO and how much of the image quality will be retained when all is said and done.

I said I made a mistake with the pixel shift. I posted pictures from the gfx100sii to compare the sensor, and the crops and post processing works for me. Everything outside of actual experience are expectations.

If you think 100-200mm isn't enough, good luck with the 35mm.

I'm fairly certain some people will like it but I'm always weary and skeptical of new gear that people praise before using it on a regular basis for real subjects.

I can't praise the camera with certainty because I haven't used it. I can tell what my expectations are and be excited about the possibilities. I understand and respect your weariness and skepticism about a new camera, but I thought the aspects I mentioned would be exciting to discuss (minus the fantasy of pixel shift).

 

[jhunna]

People are passionate about their opinions on the 100RF.

We have strayed into language that is inappropriate for the forum.

So, please, let us continue in a collegial manner.

Doppler, as Mod.

Thanks for posting this. I try not to take anything in the wrong way, but I do match the energy I am perceiving. I don't know anyone in this board for anything to be personal.