Fujifilm GFX 100 review

First, that question about it being the ultimate do-everything camera we should take a rhetorical one. What makes this camera unique is its image quality coupled with its versatility of use for medium format.

Here's how one photog put it on PetaPixel:
There has never been a camera that combines such stunning image quality, resolution, dynamic range, autofocus performance, overall handling, and ergonomics like the new Fujifilm GFX 100 does.

https://petapixel.com/2019/06/06/why-the-fujifilm-gfx100-is-next-level/

It's not a perfect camera but it is an "amazing" one, as Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals put it.

As for macro there is a guy who is using it for macro and the results are spectacular. The 100 MP sensor really allows for great detail in the macro shots.

https://madsbjerke.com/2019/07/27/fujifilm-gfx-100-macro/

So back to the original question of it being the ultimate one camera solution. That just depends on what one wants to do.

Clint, I own the XT-2, XT-3, XH-1, X100F and GFX 50r. None of them feel cheap. On the contrary, they are extremely well made and very rugged. I know because I am extremely hard on my gear.
Now I will readily admit that I ordered the GFX 100 and have been waiting for it for many weeks now, and I have never held the camera. I've never seen one. But I bet it doesn't feel cheap. And I can tell you for sure that if it does feel cheap it sure as Hell ain't cheap! 😉
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Why would DPR change what is already standard convention??? When anyone says FF it is understood by 99% of photographers to be 35mm. Anyone who says otherwise is a contrarian.

Tommy K1,
You did not quite get what I meant. You are talking about the lens.
Instead, I am an artist, and I am talking about the photograph: a file or a print.

Magnification 1:1 simply means the target is copied on to the sensor as big as it is: A 35 mm wide butterfly is 35 mm wide on a sensor.
However, if you use FF the butterfly then fills the sensor area as FF sensor is 36 mm wide.
But if you use MF sensor the butterfly is still 35 mm wide, but because of a bigger sensor it does not fill it.
So it does have a lot to with the sensor size.

Then, if you print the photo (the example above, 1:1 and 35 mm object) both to the size of 36 cm x 24 cm, the following happens.
Now in the FF print the butterfly 35 cm wide, but in the MF print it is smaller, depending on the size of the sensor (44 x 33 or bigger).
Again, a lot to with the sensor size.

Harry, I said that result is not same because it is format related, but magnification (like Macro is 1:1 to 10:1 ratio, anything below 1:1 magnification is close-up until 1:10 ratio).

No one cares is your photo macro or not, if one can capture the subject and represent it in final image in fashion where technicalities are not disturbing the content of the photo (excessive flare, ghosting, noise etc that are denying the purpose of the photograph), and that means cropping too.

Macro with a 8x10 large format camera is a full headshot, not something that some would even thought about as Macro for those is anything that is size of few millimeters etc or that is filling a 35mm sensor size.

The people should not get stuck to sensor sizes such a way that DPR is make it to be. And then try to twist the focal lengths and F-stops to changes in sensor sizes, as all that is just making all the photography far more difficult than it really is, and goes around the actual differences.

Photographer makes the photos, lens frames it and sensor/film captures it (is exposed).

And the photographer starts all the decisions to use specific gear by defining first what are the requirements for the final output. Ie.

If you do billboards, you just need 2-3 Mpix for that.
If you do postcards, you just need 1 Mpix for that.
If you do a newspapers, 1-2 Mpix is enough.
If you do web content, 1-2 Mpix is enough for that.
If you do magazines or books, 4-5 Mpix is enough for that.
If you do 80 x 60 cm prints, 8-10 Mpix is enough for that.

If you do 50% cropping (1/4 of the area as result), you need a longer focal length or more careful framing or way to move closer, but you can get somewhat away with just sensor as even with 16 Mpix sensor you get 4 Mpix left that is enough for most usage.

And no, there is no such difference do you look a 4 Mpix image from a 32" Full HD television or from 75" 4K television, as you are not going to sit 1 meters from the 75" television.

The d850 or the a7r iv are good examples of all rounders. Not necessarily the best in any field of photography but can do a very good job in most photographic disciplines

@ Richard Butler Perfect response.

Fuji GFX is a 100
Huawei P is a 30

so it is 70 better.

It's exactly 527 units of IQ better.

Based on my analysis, I'd say it is 600 times better

pssst pixel count =/= larger sensor.

Does the 5DS/R have IBIS?

No? Hmm.

It's almost as if image stabilization drastically improves the ability to get good results out of high-MP cameras when they aren't locked down on tripods...

Shutter shock, mirror slap, and lack of IBIS certainly hurts the 5DS/R.

Could you please point out where we said the 5D S or SR "could not be used outside a studio environment?"

I think we pointed out that you need to think about shutter speeds and drive modes pretty carefully, but not that it couldn't be used outside the studio. The GFX 100's IBIS and relatively clever switching between electronic, EFCS and mechanical shutter take some of these pressures off you, but we still said you need to think carefully about shutter speed to get the full resolution benefit.

Also, cough, focus accuracy.

Dan Vincent "Shutter shock, mirror slap, and lack of IBIS certainly hurts the 5DS/R."
Canon didn't go into the 5DSR blind about shutter shock as they developed a new mirror box designed to negate shutter shock from mirror slap. If I recall shutter shock was more of an issue with the Nikon D810.

There are many Canon lenses that have image stabilization so not having IBS in the 5DSR is not really a big issue.

HAR
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d850/8

DPR "Mirror / shutter shock

One of our biggest issues with the D810 was the softness and often significant blur induced by shake caused by the mirror and shutter mechanisms, particularly with VR lenses where the vibration reduction mechanism seemed to interact negatively with the shock caused by the moving mirror and/or shutter. At certain shutter speeds with some lenses it was bad enough to render completely"

I have a D800E and have not experienced SS issues but note, I've not researched SS issues with the D800.

Like it! Irony here is that the new Fuji probably is the ultimate crime scene camera...

Maybe more ironic is that there wouldn’t be any photos because his wife surely isn’t going to bother...

@Ijclark - that could be the best and funniest comment i've ever read on here.... hahah

I am sorry but these MF camera's have been compared to the FF ever since the GFX 50 came to the market three years ago. It makes sense because we see that m43 cams are constantly in every single review compared to APS-c where these two are not the same format either. APS-c is 365 mm2 and mFT 224 mm2. A 60% difference which is almost identical to the difference between 864 mm2 (FF) and this sort of Medium format (1452 mm2).

Indeed, Jorginho is very correct.

And given that Fuji's historical user base is happy to play up how close they perceive APS-C to be to FF, despite there being a whopping 135% difference in sensor size (i.e. more than twice the difference in size between M4/3 and APS-C), it seems like there is a little bit of cognitive dissonance happening.

People also seem quite happy to compare 1" sensors to 4/3" sensors, despite a 94% difference in sensor size (again bigger than the difference between 44x33 and FF, and between APS-C and M4/3).

There's no reason that this 44x33 mini-medium format should be considered to be "untouchable" or in an "entirely different category" merely by virtue of being somewhat larger than 36x24.

@Jorginho - but that's not how DPRs scoring system works, because trying to compare a 100MP MF camera with an iPhone, with a single number, would be completely pointless

It is about Gold and Silver. Not 90 vs 85 or so which I understand. And like I said: when it is IQ: mFT is compared to APS-c constantly. When it is AF it is. Apparantly it is somehow fair to compare a 225 mm2 sensor to a 365 mm2 sensor. One might say: "Well they are in the same price category so you would expect the such a comparison". Or in broader sense that they are pretty similar. This would all count for MF too though. with one caveat: the MF cam is about three times more expensive than the most expensive FF. Where mFT is not forgiven, certainly not Panasonic, Its AF is not bad at all, it is very good actually. But..always mentioned as a downside as compared to some APS-c cams. Being fair means you apply a single standard to all competitors. To be biased means you use a double stadand and too often I see this happening here.

@Androole--The endless price promotions have the 50R at $3999 for all practical purposes. It is still pretty early in the product cycle, so additional price reductions may appear in the not too distant future. $2,999 is the right answer to the new Sony A7R iv.

Plenty of money to be made selling lenses and new camera bodies down the road.

The 50R is a bit of a strange product, though, because it was arguably already a way to use up pieces from the parts bin that were at the end of their life cycle. The sensors in it, for instance, are already more than 5 years old. Which is about as old as sensors get, these days.

I expect Sony thinks the A7R IV is a closer match for the GFX100 given all its bells and whistles, and would be happy to put the A7R II or III up against the much less sophisticated GFX 50R. Given that those cameras are selling in the $1800-2500 range, that $3000 50R really probably should come sooner rather than later.

Though I suppose there is a mysticism associated with the words "medium format" that can make rationality fly out the window.

I agree with your assessment of the 50R. They may have used some dated parts, but did so with aggressive pricing in mind. There have been a number of reviews that note the camera is not a terrific value proposition--marginal cost versus the marginal benefits of upgrading from FF to MF. Still they all rave about the image quality of the 50R. That was before the new Sony.

A lower price for the 50R changes that equation. How low and how soon are the questions? I think early next year the camera will retail for $3,500 and lower by the end of 2020. Fuji will probably come out with a new model that has a more modern sensor and some more bells and whistles as well.

GFX 50S mark II with 60 mega pixels (50 is fine, but 10 more won't hurt), increased DR, tremendously responsive processor, 3-4FPS (above is fine), IBIS (not really a deal breaker for me especially if its gonna increase the size, but for some it might be), 4K @ 30fps (optional), 1080p @ 60fps (nice to have), hybrid auto detection, improved autofocus (especially low light) performance, better noise reduction at ISO 6400, USB-C, retain UHS-II (or the faster one at that time), 1/250 native flash sync, ISO 50 native, in-built radio transmitter for strobes (killer feature), everything else I don't really care.

@RhonaldJR
re: "GFX 50S mark II with 60 mega pixels (50 is fine, but 10 more won't hurt)"

They will have a hard time finding this modern sensor, given that the sensor in the GFX100, Sony A7IV and XT3 is the same Sony sensor. Fuji is in a kind of trap with Sony sensors.

'Doomed as FF competition'. You picked one word out of my post and made nonsense out of it. With people like you humanity is doomed.

I believe its outselling the XT3 at the moment so I'm thrilled this better than full frame system is here to stay .

I don’t think this trying to compete with FF

I see, we have quite a few CEOs over here, maybe you should all team up.

Bigsensorisbest Not sure outselling the XT3 is a good thing. APSC is feeling the squeeze of FF priced similarly to it.

Sorry mf, I used your whole comment to come up with my conclusion that your comment is clueless. This camera is DIFFERENT than Canon's and Sony's FF high res smaller sensor variants and will outperform both for it's intended purpose on multiple levels. Now this camera may not be YOUR cup of tea but it isn't doomed and they are going to sell tons of them.

If you want to call me clueless be my guest but this camera, on paper at least, looks amazing.

I disagree. Not everyone needs speed.

Priaptor. Ok. If they sell tons of them they will because people want MF not a FF replacement. We will see.

MF I moved from FF to GFX and I'd never go back. I love the bigger sensor and the whole experience. I actually get a bit emotional when I pick it up. I definately like the camera more than most people...

Bigsensorisbest I like all your saying but the emotional part. Get a puppy or a wife.

I cry every time I pick up my Nikon coolpix and not in good way

It outsells the X-T3... and Fujifilm is doing well? - Right this is why Fujifilm just released their financial results for Q1 2020 and guess what?

The Year on Year revenue of Fujifilm dropped a whopping 63% over last years Q1 from 12.2 billion yen to 4.5 billion yen.

Yes Fujifilm is really outperforming the others... Even Nikon showed better results year on year for Q1. That's the sad truth of it.

If the GFX100 truly outsells the X-T3 then you can really say Fujifilm is in BIG troubles.

No sir - The GFX100 is not outselling the X-T3.
As a matter of fact it may sell according to their projection, but that number is far, far below the number of planned X-T3's to sell.

For your information the GFX is funded from the income of the X-Series. Without the X-Series there is no chance that the GFX will be able to grow to a level that it can be sustainable on its own. That's the reality of it.

But I can fully understand that's not the romance story you would like have heard.

@Bigsensorisbest

"I believe its outselling the XT3 at the moment so I'm thrilled this better than full frame system is here to stay ."

I sure hope that's a sarcastic remark. If you remotely believe that, I'm sorry, it's not true. Not really even possible either, since the XT-3 has been out for far longer, not to mention the XT-3 is about 1/6 of the price of a GFX100. The GFX100 is also too new to have outsold the XT3 in any way.

And to be honest, I don't see MF taking off significantly any time soon, partially because not many people need 100MP and if Sony's a7R IV can prove that a FF at 61MP can produce good results, then we may not necessarily need the extra cost and bulk of a 100MP MF camera. Even the 50MP GFX50s/R have shown that for most people, 50MP on a MF camera at around $4000-$5000 is about the limit most people are going to pay for such technology (At least, right now). (Heck people complained about the cost of the a7R IV and the NIkon Z7/D850).

Sounds like a FF user has p*nis envy :)
They wouldn't post this at first because they said the "p" word was a swear word. It's an anatomical term for heaven's sake and p*nis envy is a real thing.

Yes, but that's not the case here. The point that is being made is that people don't read the small print, which is what I was pointing out. The user implied that the GFX100 was outseling the XT-3, which is partially true if you ONLY looked at Fujirumor's numbers. But even they say that this is not representative of the community and not total sales.

I don't really care for MF. For my needs, it would essentially be a wate of money to spend $10k on a body. $5k maybe, but then there is the cost of lenses, which is not too appealing to me. a 45MP FF sensor is more than plenty for me, as it is probably for many on here, especially those just posting online or to social media.

People can think whatever they want, but this is how false information gets passed around. People cherry pick or skew numbers (either intentionally or unintentionally) as fact.

The lastest Sony dont have 15stop, this is marketing bull, even DPReview stated that it was the same as the A7Riii.

And the bandind artifact, its in there on the sony sensor as well.

@PNad - Well I have news for you. The 16 bit RAW from the Fujifilm GFX100 is also pure marketing.

I recently attended a GFX100 roadshow and when I asked the technical guys from Fujifilm Germany about sensor 16-bit RAW their answer was that the sensor is capable of 16-bit RAW however the output is still 14-bit RAW.... Now stop talking and blaming others over marketing as Fujifilm does exactly the same.

Don't believe me, call Fujifilm tell them you are interested in the GFX100, go and attend a roadshow and ask the technical guys from Fujifilm the same question and you will get to hear the exact same answer. Not 16-bit RAW just 14-bit like all other manufacturers offer.

16bit raw as being useless since forever even on hassy and phase back. Jim kasson just published today is result and theres little to no difference vs 14bit.

That don’t change the fact that the new sony dont have more DR. The 15stop DR is fake, the 16bit recording is real even if it doesn’t add anything at the end.

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/visual-comparisons-of-fuji-gfx-100-14-and-16-bit-raw-precision/

I have nothing against sony, I shoot weddings with 2 A9, and studio landscapes stuff with the GFX50 and 100.

Just wanted to point out that the new A7R have more DR is bull.

FWIW it looks like 26MP APS-C, 60MP FF and 100MP MF are the same sensor with different sizes (ie, the individual photosites are the same size) so they should have the same per "pixel" DR (all things being equal). if normalizing to some resolution (8MP for example) sensor surface area is directly responsible for DR. Unless someone is cooking their raws (or withholding tech from competition) ...

@Duncan M - you got poor information. The Sony sensor in the GFX100 has two selectable bit outputs, 14bit and 16bit. Fujifilm allow you to use either.

The previous 50MP sensor in the GFX and Hasselblad X1D is only 14bit - although Hasselblad always claimed 16bit, which was pure marketing.

In the case of the GFX100, 16bit is indeed real, but its advantages over using 14bit are slim to none.

The 16-bit Raw files have distinct values for each of the 65,536 levels that a 16-bit file can support, with no gaps. There's no reason to believe they're not 16-bit.

That additional precision isn't necessarily useful (both visual and mathematical assessment points to there being no benefit on this camera), but it's not true to claim they're 14-bit files.

What wrong with that statement? I’m confused what the problem is?

^^ Whatever, dude. I prefer Richard's version.

This is probably the limit of what we review but a class of cameras with 54 x 40mm sensors exists beyond this. We have one of them: the Phase One IQ4 150MP, which has essentially a larger version of this sensor (the same BSI 3.76μm pixels, only more of them), and everything we've shot and seen shows its IQ scales up as you'd expect.

The statement that it has the best image quality of any camera we've ever reviewed is absolutely true. However, it feels necessary to put that in context. This isn't to take away from the GFX 100's performance but it would be inappropriate for me not to acknowledge that, if money really is no object, there is a class of cameras beyond this.

HB1969: You are not talking about the same Panasonic model as elvissa1.

Also, it's probably the focus and lens alignment - with these high resolution test shots, it almost always makes a difference where exactly you are looking:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr13_1=pentax_k1&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1&attr13_3=phaseone_iq180&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=35&attr126_0=4&attr126_1=2&attr126_2=2&attr126_3=4&normalization=full&widget=687&x=0.917048052573842&y=-0.8235567715458276

Last I looked, the Imaging(photography, including Instax) division is not much more than 10% of their overall business. They have their fingers in many pies.

I think eventually MILCs will go the way of the Dodo. With maybe niche high-end pro models remaining. For the vast majority of people, smartphone cameras are already good enough. The dedicated camera market is unsustainable over the medium to long term unfortunately. It may even get to the point that enthusiast photographers will have no other choice but to solely use their smartphones for this hobby. Or just stick to their increasingly antiquated cameras and lenses they already own. Very sad 😔

Actually i met quiet a lot of people who want to buy "real" camera for up to 1000€ in order to make better photos as their smartphone. .

We will see..

I think GabrielZ is correct. The only potential survivors will be Canon, SONY & Leica. It is sad, I'm old so I'll continue to enjoy the hobby with what I have(can't see buying any new gear) but for those who will only know smartphone photography, I feel they are missing a wonderful, hands on experience- nothing like looking through a viewfinder and making all the decisions yourself rather than AI determining everything. But this is how the world turns and it is stunning what smartphones are capable of, and will be even more so in the future.

Whats the point of life if we end up dying anyway right?

@TheWhiteDog:

Fortunately, Canon's 5D series, Olympus OM and OM-D are indestructible and will last more than anlife span :-p.

I guess there will be always some cameras available.. Fujifilm, Olympus, Canon will survive.. they are doing ok and they do not depend on the imaging market only.

NicoPPC - Fujifilm is currently doing worse than Nikon.... That's a BIG problem not minor. Nikons FY2020 Q1 figures were bad but expected and forecasted by Nikon themselves. However these figures of Fujifilm are even worse and were unpredicted for.

The problem is that Fujifilm imaging isn't doing well at all.
They may not be able to survive in the long run if Fujifilm isn't able to make the GFX sustainable on its own within in the next few years. As it seems the X-Series are under huge pressure from above and sales is declining in a more rapid pace than Fujifilm had anticipated for.

A drop in revenue for Q1 from 12 billion yen to just 4.5 billion Yen on a YtoY basis is a loss of income of 63%. That's a huge sign that things are NOT going as planned.

@Ducan M: don't panic

So? Do your enjoyement out of a camera directly tied to financial performances? Who cares if they go bankrupt, right now, the GFX100 is a beast, by the time of a given company goes kaput, another beast will rise by then, and so on.

Enjoy life and stop stressing about everything

@Ducan M.
I really don't know much about...
However, around me, most people use APS-C. And some pros left their ff to aps c as well.
Not a single Sony at the horizon... some got a GFX..

We've been shooting the Phase One IQ4 alongside the the GFX 100, so the difference between the two (in terms of being able to shoot hand-held, having the battery endurance to practically shoot outside the studio, in terms of focus accuracy and speed) are covered in the conclusion. This was my comparison point every bit as much as full frame was.

@xjuanx it's because it blows away any other MF camera and operation wise, it's closer to a DSLR, FF camera. There isn't any MF camera on the market that can beat GFX on price, functionality, speed, autofocus, video, lens price. there might be 2-3 MF can beat this beast on ultimate image quality wise but they are for tethered studio shots or painfully slow (compared to gfx100) to operate and their lens price is more than gfx100 so you do the math

X-Trans just works fine (at least for me).. I noticed it pretty reduced moire. Color noise and colour accuracy in high iso is quiet good as well...

Draw back are very low

fuji stated once that they use bayer on the gfx line because processing xtrans is immense, to calculate, xtrans is much more efficient on low pixel count

This problem, if it is one, was discussed when the first Fuji "mid format" came out some years back. Bigger sensor does gather more light, but with no fast lenses available the TOTAL amount of light is more with 135 sensor cameras with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses than this Fuji with f/2, not to mention f/2.8. Thus there is no (theoretical) dynamic range and noise advantage over 135 cameras until f/1.4 lenses are available for it also.

You can adapt faster FF lenses to GFX cameras. It's not much larger sensor than FF and in many cases there won't be any black corners. Look, it's Sigma 135 Art:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWdC2zLIaeI
And here is Canon 85F1.4L IS :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWX4Ungtizc
Or just google for "Techart GFX" or "Viltrox GFX".

"fast lenses are used to create a thin depth of field, not to keep the iso down"

"With a medium format, a f2 lens delivers super thin DOF which is already very hard to use (at 100mp)"

This points to the difficulties in extracting all the potential image quality from larger sensor systems. If you're limited by available DoF and need to increase the ISO, you aren't getting all the benefit of the larger sensor.

It's not only that it's a great camera, it's that it's out of reach for most people, so fewer people will own it, so no turf to defend.

Fewer, not less.

If Sony brought forth a 6x7 sized sensor, 200mp or more, for under $30k, with a kit as good (or even just nearly as good) as the Fuji, the 54x40mm sensor would be rendered practically irrelevant. Think of the versatility of a top-rate 24-35 f/4 zoom in conjunction with a 6x7 sized sensor. If Sony created such a kit- Sony would have the premium MF segment to itself.