Fujifilm GFX 100 review

TEdolph apparently came into some money.

2 days agopermalink

Tazz93

Hmm... I don't see the AF test as good as the author suggests. I'd say 80'ish percent of them are unacceptably un-sharp. Sure, I guess that depends on what you feel is acceptable focus, but it looks consistently behind the rider. But, as a saving grace... I don't think anyone really expected this to be stellar in this test, however, I'm surprised it was judged with such a positive slant EVEN though the performance is obviously below par in the current mirror-less realm. I will accept maybe there was more of an issue with the capture than the performance, but still... I don't see the positivity the following statement has.

The DPR verbiage.

"...As you can see, it does very well. It's not perfectly focused in every shot but it's extremely close, given how closely a 1:1 view is letting us view these images. That said, the camera only performs AF-C in its 3fps mode and we found that this was dropping to nearer 1.3fps to get these results."

2 days agopermalink

I don't think I'm saying something radically different to you. 1:1 viewing of 100MP images is much more stringent target than we expect other cameras to achieve, yet the shoulders of the safety jacket are well focused in many of the shots.

I'm not saying you're going to get the full IQ of the camera, every shot, if you try to shoot moving subjects but compared to most medium format cameras (where getting perfect focus at all shouldn't be taken for granted), it's pretty impressive.

2 days agopermalink

Tazz93

I agree, we are saying a lot of things in-line with each other. The only problem I have was with the positive prefix to the overall negative to neutral view. It looks like the camera was consistently just rearward and that could have been where the AF point was taking its cues from. So re-trying the test or just portraying it as inclusive might have made more sense.

You are right to relate this to other medium format cameras, as that's what it is, but I feel the bar should be higher as the camera is rated against non-medium format cameras in its overall rating. To suggest this is anything other than "OK", feels like a misrepresentation (Note: referring to AF performance here).

Overall, I feel it was well reviewed, but I also felt like it had some odd positive skews where performance was mostly neutral/adequate.

2 days ago*permalink

CaNikonianite

Sheesh. Why did Fuji make it look like the S1 Pro? This camera looks like the box it came in.

2 days ago*permalink

The photo that shows the full camera with the sensor exposed really puts the size of this unit in perspective. It's a huge sensor yet it looks like a M43 sensor in that body.

3 days agopermalink

TripleCoatedBokeh

Focus drift sounds like a non-trivial problem for something geared towards studio and product shoots, no?

3 days agopermalink

Only if there's some reason you need to fix the focus and shoot lots of shots.

If you can AF or you need to change the focus every couple of shots, which will be the case for most shooting, then it's a non-issue. Setting it up to archive documents (like a rostrum camera), it might be worth adapting a mechanical manual focus lens instead.

But we mentioned it specifically so that anyone that might be affected by it can judge for themselves.

2 days agopermalink

eilivk

RAW quality has hit the limit, the roof on the dpr scale. It can't get better than this....

3 days agopermalink

Einride

Looks like an incredible camera. Wow.

5 days agopermalink

Derek Midgley

Never disagreed with your ratings before but, come on, your build quality score is simply wrong. You said it yourself "Control dials feel small and cheap" and I don't need to hold one to see that vertical grip is like an afterthought. And now they need to recall maybe 1500 bodies due to a dial / lock issue on that afterthought of a grip. I've loved the look and feel of all Fuji's cameras. But this one is a build quality / ergo fail. I can't hardly believe it in context with all their other beautiful cameras. Let's hope it's beautiful on the inside!

5 days agopermalink

The 'Ergonomics and Handling' score was dented by the dial feel. But they're metal dials in a weather-sealed body, so we didn't double-count it in the build quality section.

2 days agopermalink

Davidgee2008

Does this make it the ultimate do-everything camera? This quote from the start of the article. Having read much about this camera, I would say it certainly is not the ultimate do-everything camera. One area where it cannot even be considered for this accolade is fps. 5fps on the GFX 100 and 5fps on the Nikon D3500. The GFX 100, at this stage is notthing but a very expensive cameras playing to a niche market. If you have oodles of cash and the need for some of its capabilities it is a possibility. But as a do-everything cameras it is not even in the hunt. Higher end APS-C Fujis would leave it in their wake as would the Nikon D500 if we are talking 'do-everything. The Nikon Z cameras and D850 could wear this mantle more easily as could the venerable Canon 5Ds. The GFX 100 is an expensive niche machine, full stop. his does not mean it will not do a superb job for those who decide they need it or must have it. The latter group could be well advised to search for something more suitable.

5 days agopermalink

This is so true.

A MF sensor sized camera certainly is not an ultimate do everything camera.
Portrait photographers like narrow depth of field and in some cases very shallow DoF.
So here it helps to have a big sensor and long focal length lenses.

However, close up and macro photographers, like me, usually try to avoid narrow DoF. I need to get close to my subjects (butterfly's, dragonfly's and snakes) anyway.
For me a big sensor is troublesome because I have to get even closer to the subject in order to fill the screen, or use even longer focal length lenses, both of which only reduces the DoF.

5 days agopermalink

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

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.

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.

3 days agopermalink

Claiming that GFX 100 is a spectacular macro camera is at least somehow odd.
I would expect some kind of grounds to that.
And why is that?

Well, firstly the bigger sensor needs to have a greater magnification in order to have the object relatively as big on the screen (sensor) as on for example FF sensor.
Macro 1:1 size object fills the FF sensor 1,67 x more than 1:1 in the MF sensor (44x33). You see 1:1 means the same object size in both sensors, but sensors are of different size.

Then, secondly there actually is no macro lens available for GFX 100.
The 0,5 magnification (1:2) is not macro, it is a close up photo.

Finally, because one needs either to get closer to the subject or to use a longer focal length lens with MF in order to get the same results than with the FF. And that means shallower DoF, which not is desirable in macro photography.

2 days agopermalink

But being able to do everything with a MF camera feels absolutely ultimate.

Been using it for one month now, weddings, family portraits, landscapes, studio, events. Its so overkill its funny. Also, jpegs looks great, 90% of time I shoot jpegs and deliver photos straight as is.

2 days agopermalink

'Control dials feel small and cheap'....why oh why does Fuji have to make these great cameras that feel cheap? My X-Pro1 was a camera I wanted to love but it felt 'hollow' for lack of a better word with mushy buttons. One of the reasons I love Leica is the build quality is impeccable....same can be said for Hasselblad and the X1D.

5 days agopermalink

Einride

Yeah I agree, I loved my X-Pro 2 but Fujifilms build quality leaves a bit to be desired.

5 days agopermalink

Greg7579

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

3 days agopermalink

SpeedyNeo

Hi Greg
Your flickr album is outstanding! Incredible work indeed. You've got a follower.

3 days agopermalink

Hi Greg, appreciate your feedback. I guess everyone's perception of 'cheap' is different. All I know is that the Fuji cameras I have held all look great, but feel cheap for lack of a better word. I guess maybe my expectations are higher after owning Leica cameras where so much effort is put into fit and finish, quality materials and even the way buttons feel when you press them.

2 days agopermalink

Greg7579

Clint, I will be the judge of that if my darn Q2 ever arrives!

2 days agopermalink

It would be about the time DPR to start call 35mm as 35mm and not as "Full Frame". As well start to call 35mm as a "Small Format" when talking about format sizes as "Medium Format" and "Large Format" and to that same "Small Format" category belongs not just 35mm but as well APS-C, 4/3" and 1" all to way down to 8mm (4.5mm x 3.3mm, so 1/3.2" sensors).

That would mean we would have again all the proper formats easily said:

Small Format (35mm and smaller)
Medium Format (anything larger than 35mm but smaller than Large Format 4x5")
Large Format (4x5" or larger)

But it is clearly way too much ask from professionals to use correct "35mm" term, as they can't even talk about "Full Frame" only in context of "Half Frame" (that is APS-C).

6 days agopermalink

We don't use "35mm" because it leads to sentences such as: "The X100 has a 23mm lens which is equivalent to 35mm in 35mm terms." It adds more confusion than clarity, for very little gain.

If we're trying to be logical, then 54 x 40mm, the largest digital format used to any major degree would surely be 'large format.'

Ultimately, 'full frame' has been the widely-used name for 35mm/135 for over twenty years. It's not a lack of professionalism you're seeing, it's an acceptance that language moves on.

And, if we're being pedantic about formats, full frame is a reference to the original formats for which the EF, K, A, R and F-mounts were designed, at a time when APS-C (which is not half frame). Half frame, if we're must be rigidly filmist about this, must only ever be used to refer to Olympus's film PEN cameras that literally used half a frame of standard 35mm film.

5 days agopermalink

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.

5 days agopermalink

54x40mm ain't largest consumer available sensor.... 8x11" is.

And half-frame is 18x24mm in size... And APS-C is?
Nikon about 24x16mm and Canon slightly smaller too.

So APS-C is close enough to Half-frame, but of course you will completely disagree...

And if someone claims that 99% of photographers knows "full frame" means 35mm sensor, then that is the hyperbole.

5 days agopermalink

"We don't use "35mm" because it leads to sentences such as: "The X100 has a 23mm lens which is equivalent to 35mm in 35mm terms." It adds"

How many reviewer in the DPR has even few classes about English literature?

As that is just an excuse that 35mm can't be used as you have whole language to go around the problems, or create them (what equivalence is doing).

So more confusion, with little gain the style that DPR like to do it.

5 days agopermalink

Pixel8888

At Oskar Barnacks time it was called miniature format and cameras. Maybe today we should call it full miniature format to make the owners proud.

4 days agopermalink

@Tommi - Don't be daft, everyone is well aware that 8x11 exists...at least in the film world. Everyone is also well aware that the term FF is used to reference 35mm frame size. You can call an orange an apple but at the end of the day it's still an orange.

4 days agopermalink

Greg7579

Ok, but what do we call all the various "1 inch" sensors on the small cameras that are not even close to one inch? 😎
I have no problem with calling 35mm FF since I have been doing that for years, as we all have. It is just a camera slang or vernacular that we all use and has caught a firm hold in the industry. It does not set a size standard or mean anything in terms of what is best. So it's phone sensors, 1 inch sensors, MFT, APSC, FF and MF sensors. No big deal. If any of you don't like it, just use the actual metric measurement in your posts and musings. .

3 days agopermalink

All sensors from the 1/2.3" up to 35mm are Small Formats, just like in the film time all from 8mm to 35mm were Small Formats.

And "Full Frame" was only proper when talking about using same 135 film roll in 35mm SLR or in Half Frame cameras. Same film, different frame size exposed. The "Full" came from that you did capture the light sensitive frame in original intended 36x24mm frame size instead half of it (18x24mm, vertically) like APS-C digitally does. And that was nothing to do with the focal lengths, F-stops etc.

The other "Full Frame" meaning was that when you show your print, you didn't trim the edges while enlarging just so that everyone could see that the shot you took was full frame.
When saying "Medium Format" then it is required to talk about "Small Format" and "Large Format" in same context, as there is no such category as "Full Frame". Comparing format category (Small, Medium, Large) to specific sensor size (35mm) is like bananas and countries comparison.

3 days agopermalink

Yatin Chachad

The image quality is ridiculously wow!!! Space age is now. Me want, But I don't have that kind of money. :(
I have to suffice with the X-h1 which in itself is great. Go Fujifilm!!!

6 days ago*permalink

Fuji is on the roll, by completely skipping the overrated 35mm sensor at once.
Make a smaller, classical consumer cameras with APS-C, and then for high quality demanding audience a medium format.

And if someone wants to do a business, you can take a loan and buy the Fuji camera system. If you have skills and you can get clients, you can pay that system back in a month or a two. But that is everyones own risk to take if they don't have capital in first place to buy it and then utilize it in their work. So hobbyists should get their funding from their profession to fund their hobby. And dropping 20-30k a year for a hobby is not too much to ask from mediocre income person.

5 days agopermalink

d2f

Amazing details in the photographs but in some cases maybe too much detail for certain subjects. For example in some of the sample images of the young women, facial hairs are visible around the mouth and on the chin. In the situation where women are the consumer of the photographs, they may find such detail objectionable. For mature female subjects they may find the skin detail likewise objectionable. Using filters and post production techniques to adjust the images may defeat the high resolution attributes of the camera. Notice, I used the word "may", no absolutes here, just an opinion of someone who does portraits.

6 days agopermalink

One of the small tidbits that DPR audience should remember is that very rare photo is ready "out of the go". And higher in commercial shooting you go, far more there is editing and adjustments done.

All the talks about sensor sizes, lens sharpness, resolution, dynamic range etc are waste of time as no one who has commitment to produce high quality photographs is going to release photos out of the camera and raw.

Amazing work can be done with decade old gear, with lenses that are not the sharpest in the bag, with sensors that are worst you can buy. Because the photograph is not made by specs, they are made by the photographer and in the image editing phase. And the final output is one that is dramatically changing all the gear differences so that what can look in pixel peeping a huge difference, can be negligent in the final image and no one else knows it than the person who has information of metadata.

Why these high Mpix are wanted, is client can crop multiple different frames.

5 days agopermalink

PankajKumar

very nice

1 week agopermalink

A photographers opinion

I am an artistic nature photographer. I take a lot of close-up photos.
While my photos are actually not macros, I still have to balance with DoF, light - fast exposure, hand shake.
I cannot use tripod, I need to be extremely fast and flexible to reach my target: timid animals – butterfly’s, dragonfly’s and snakes.

GFX 100, how could the spectacular camera work – with what lens?
Possibly 120 mm f/4 or 250 mm f/4 with 1.4x TC.

120 mm can do 1:2 photos from 45 cm distance. Not for me: DoF, light, scaring effect. Also 1:2 in MF is not the same as in FF. Target is 1:2 in the sensor, but due to bigger it would mean cropping.
In practice, I could use 120 mm down to the 60 cm distance, not closer than that.
That would probably mean 1:3,5.

250 mm can only do 1:5 photos, with 1.4 TC 1:3. So that would mean cropping too.

GFX 100 with the recent lenses means cropping for me, meaning there are other options like Sony a7R IV, possibly with the sharp FE 100-400 /f4.5-5.6.

1 week agopermalink

1:2 is same regardless the format.
1:1 is same regardless the format.

The lens magnification DOES NOT CHANGE BY THE FORMAT!

Macro range is 1:1 to 10:1 and it has NOTHING to do with the sensor/film size.
Close-Up range is 1:1 to 1:10 and again has nothing to do with sensor/film size.
Photomicrophotography is 10:1 to far higher magnifications.

When you have lens reproduction (magnification) ratio known, you then call tell that what is front of the lens is projected in that ratio to behind of the lens and you know the distances and other ratios as it is format agnostic.

6 days agopermalink

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.

5 days agopermalink

Hi Harry, please read again as I already explained all that. It is sensor agnostic. I talk about complete process from final picture to capture.

5 days agopermalink

Tommi K1,
Really, all I care is what kind of photo can I get from the subject I am interested in.

One more example, where the object (butterfly) is the same (width 36 mm), distance to the object is the same, focal length is the same, lenses are 1:1 macro and finally, both cameras have a 50 mega pixel sensor, but of a different size. One is FF (36x24) and the other is MF (44x33).

With FF:
The object is 36 mm wide and it fills the sensor width 100 %.
The final product is the photo file where the butterfly is just as wide as the whole photo is. Let's say the object coverage is 25 mega pixels of the whole 50 mega pixels of the photo. The object coverage is then 50 %.

With MF:
The final product is the photo file where the butterfly is now not as wide as the whole photo, but 36/44 of the width of the photo. The object has now about 15 mega pixels of the whole 50 mega pixels of the photo. The object coverage is now only 30 %.

5 days agopermalink

I will add this here because of the character limitation of the comments.
I never said that the lens magnification changes by the format.
1:1 is 1:1 with APS-C, FF and MF.
BUT, the result in the photo file is not the same, just as I describe above.

5 days agopermalink

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.

5 days agopermalink

Sometimes I am amazed what people are getting worked up about: if you take macro, handheld, nature photographs, get a camera that fits your use case. The Fuji GFX100 certainly ain't that camera -- so why the question about a camera you are never gonna buy?

5 days agopermalink

PhotoRotterdam,
Yes you got the point. I have a camera/lens setup that does what I need.
Anyways, I am interested if there is a new camera/lens setup with what I could do much better. If it can help me take photos where I usually cannot (faster and more accurate autofocus, better handling).
See, with butterfly's you sometimes need to be real fast and flexible. And it could be a species you do not see every year.

So basically:
GFX 100 as a camera could do better (IQ), but surely it is slower.
Camera may do, but the lenses available do not.
I usually do not crop at all, I want to get close enough to fill the screen correctly. GF lenses would not let me do it right.

And lastly:
This is one opinion among all others. One special artist style photographing with special needs.
I think it is worth reading, especially because I see here words all-rounder and do-everything-camera.
Thinking about that, a photographer should never ever forget that the lenses make the photos, camera captures it.

4 days agopermalink

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.

4 days agopermalink

Generally speaking yes.

However I prefer to say that the photographer also frames the target (moving or zooming).
Lenses do much more than a camera body (electronic sensor) and the quality there really matters, though there are optical laws that cannot be changed.
This is something I think has not been discussed enough.
DPReview uses a test photo to compare IQ of different camera bodies.
But they are not done with the same lens (like D810 and D850).

I do of course sell my work and in that case the photos are manufactured to artwork paintings, I do not sell files. The biggest I have used are 100 cm x 80 cm (wall painting, ratio 5:4). Now if that painting is about 150 DPI it means 5905 x 4724 dots, which is a 6K photo.

I use a quality 4K display to look at my photos, sometimes even zooming a bit. The distance to the display is usually 60 cm, but sometimes even 40 cm (I have a very good near vision). So definitely the 36.3 mega pixels of my camera is enough (7.36K), but not too much.

4 days agopermalink

4K display is just a 8.3 Mpix, so viewing a final image for quality evaluation is not possible unless at 100% enlargement. A common 4K 27" display has 157 PPI. So it is almost 1:1 with a printing in 1:1. But high quality printing allows very heavy differences in file resolution and yet result the same quality in print. Meaning you can get same quality out of 10Mpix than with a 50 Mpix.
Like example 8x11" print:
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7443001054/photos/3585963/image10
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7443001054/photos/3585957/digital
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7443001054/photos/3585958/printed

Sure a person can look at 8x10" print and then notice a higher definition between 300 DPI and 720 DPI, but that is really so tiny that even 150 DPI passes in most cases and 125 DPI starts to be questionable for many.

Processing the files for printing is totally another thing, where the real difference is made, instead using specific lens or sensor.

3 days agopermalink

Stephen Scharf

"Does this make it the ultimate do-everything camera?"

There is *no* ultimate do-everything camera. A camera is simply a tool to do a job. You guys know this as well as anyone else, so why is this question posed as premise in your comment when you already know the answer is "No."? (and that it applies to all cameras?)

Roger Cicala's comment nailed it.

1 week agopermalink

I understand what they are getting at, I think an “all rounder” is another term. You wont recommend a Sony a 7s to a landscape photographer nor a phase one to a sports photographer

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

The venerable Roger Cicala of LensRentals said this about the camera:

What’s the quick take? Sometimes things are more expensive because they’re worth it. This camera is amazing.

1 week agopermalink

hpylori

Salute to Fujifilm....they triumphed against all odds!!!

1 week agopermalink

youheardright

Why didn’t it get a perfect score?

1 week agopermalink

Because it's not perfect.

1 week agopermalink

@ Richard Butler Perfect response.

1 week agopermalink

A9RIII

90 is a far to high score considering the price and how slow it is. almost useless for many of us who wants to snap non-stationary subjects.

1 week agopermalink

Terkwoiz

Is the autofocus really that bad?

1 week ago*permalink

Bigwind

I have try out both 50S and 100,no. they are fast ,depending on what type of lens. They are amazing!

1 week ago*permalink

A9RIII

All is relative... The 100 is painfully slow both in FPS and continuous AF compared to mirrorless alternatives costing 1/3.

6 days agopermalink

Davidgilmour

Ok, but how much better is the IQ compared to the Huawei P30 pro phone?
99% of the people could not tell the difference in a good light photo.

1 week agopermalink

Please tell me on wich planet do you live that you can always take pictures in good lighting conditions.

1 week agopermalink

tkbslc

Fuji GFX is a 100
Huawei P is a 30

so it is 70 better.

1 week agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

It's exactly 527 units of IQ better.

1 week agopermalink

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/medium-format-camera-phone-xiaomis-108mp-sensor-out-pixels-the-fuji-gfx-100

That would depend, a tiny thumbnail perhaps (that is about the only circumstance)

1 week agopermalink

Esstee

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

1 week agopermalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Nice camera. Any of the Open Forum geniuses want to tell us there's no such thing as microcontrast?

1 week agopermalink

Mescalamba

Its just placebo, ofc those images cant pop out.

Oh wait, they do..

That would be quite interesting with some adapted Leica and Zeiss.

1 week agopermalink

tkbslc

shallow DOF and good lighting will do that.

1 week agopermalink

Mescalamba

Sure, but you need sensor that is able to capture that detail (contrast). And lens thats able to provide it.

1 week agopermalink

RhonaldJR

Now there is a medium format camera phone according to this article... well...

1 week agopermalink

Time to sell my gfx100 and by 20 of them.

1 week agopermalink

DarnGoodPhotos

pssst pixel count =/= larger sensor.

1 week agopermalink

3pgrey

Thanks rhonald, now I know to never waste my time reading any publications from them

1 week agopermalink

RolliPoli

More is more!
Me want!!!

1 week agopermalink

Anyone else spot the photographer standing with two others reflected in the eye of the girl in image 11?

1 week ago*permalink

Michiel953

Many high res cameras can give you that; I’ve seen it in my portraits quite often.
I’ve always wondered: what did the camera actually focus on? The pupil or the reflection of someone/something in the distance?

Baffling stuff.

1 week agopermalink

LOL! When Canon made the 5DS/R dpreview said it could not be used outside a studio environment. Now with the 100 MPIX Fuji you will "get the most out of 100 megapixels even when you leave the studio behind you".

Anyway good that dpreview has left the more MPIX = studio camera myth behind. And cudos to Fuji showing the way with a blazing 100 MPIX camera. Cannot wait to see Canon's high MPIX mirrorless.

1 week ago*permalink

canonpicture2

Because "the staff" is sooo anti Canon..... beyond the core.
Any Canon milc in the future 'll be bashed & crowned with 'silver' to the most. Sub-leagued by its peers; they 'll 'claim'.

1 week agopermalink

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...

1 week agopermalink

Dan Vincent

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

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

Carey Rose

Also, cough, focus accuracy.

1 week agopermalink

Peter1976

@richard, don't feed the troll... ;)

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

HowaboutRAW

Snapper2013:

"If I recall shutter shock was more of an issue with the Nikon D810."

No, that's the D800, and it's not really a problem with that body either.

1 week agopermalink

@Snapper2013 - 'There are many Canon lenses that have image stabilization so not having IBS in the 5DSR is not really a big issue'
Give me a break...there are a lot more Canon lenses that do NOT have IS. Canon needs to implement IBIS in future cameras to be taken seriously.

5 days agopermalink

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.

5 days ago*permalink

Clint Dunn RELAX! Believe it or not, most photographers using none ibsi cameras get by.

5 days agopermalink

HowaboutRAW

Snapper:

Okay, but I've tried the D810, and noted no shutter shock. Now, I can't say that I tried VR lenses with that body. And it's not a camera that I say shot 400 sample raws with.

I certainly give credence to the DPR observation, but I want more details.

5 days ago*permalink

bluevellet

I'd love to own this camera, but my wife would kill me if I did.

1 week agopermalink

ljclark

But think about the quality of the crime scene photos!

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week ago*permalink

Terkwoiz

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

1 week agopermalink

Timotis77

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

1 week agopermalink

Jorginho

Great camera, well done Fuji. Comprehensive review. I wonder though why it gets gold. Its AF is clearly not as good as the contemporary FF cams. Banding limits DR that can be used.. It is times more expensive than a Panasonic or Sony FF S1R A74. S1R however gets silver while it does not seem to be worse in any way o at least not as much as the price would suggest

1 week agopermalink

hifimacianer

The GFX, as a medium format camera, is evaluated in comparison to other medium format cameras, and not against other sensor formats.

1 week agopermalink

Probably because it is the best AF available in this category (plus IBIS).

Maybe it will get improved through firmware update. Fujifilm use to improve their AF algorithms and passed them through their cameras..

1 week agopermalink

Jorginho

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).

1 week ago*permalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

Chris Dodkin

@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

1 week agopermalink

Jorginho

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.

1 week agopermalink

hifimacianer

A canon EOS M100 has gold too.
The GFX100 seems to be special in it's category, that's why the dpreview staff thinks it's worth to give it a gold award.

1 week agopermalink

eastwestphoto

102MP BSI-CMOS 44 x 33mm sensor = NOW

379MP BSI-CMOS 60x90mm sensor = Future!

Lets face it increase the Pixel Pitch, drop the res to 200 MP and it will be the camera of the 21st century!

1 week ago*permalink

HowaboutRAW

eastwest:

You're forgetting the need for bigger lenses to cover that bigger sensor.

1 week agopermalink

big aperture

i would love a digital folder mirrorless 6x9 camera.... my wallet would probably die though :)

1 week agopermalink

DotCom Editor

Medium format is bigger than full frame.

There's some incongruity there. It's not any different than Dr. Nick on The Simpsons yelling, "Inflammable means flammable?"

1 week agopermalink

Chris Dodkin

Large Format > Medium Format > Small Format

1 week agopermalink

Sardonic G

A well written review. Though it is irksome that it has upped my desire to spend the mortgage money on getting my hands on one of these beauties.

1 week agopermalink

That's a lot of mortgage payments at 10k or close to 20k with lens.

1 week ago*permalink

A reason why second mortgages exist.

1 week agopermalink

TBLF

Obviously this is an amazing feat of engineering. I'd love one! Not sure I like the defaults and skin tones looking at the studio scene compared to the 645z, the girl almost looks green on the Fuji, but those defaults can probably be changed. The Fuji kicks butt on resolution, ergonomics and features, that is certain.

Oddly enough, when doing the studio comparison, the 645z couldn't even resolve the peacock feather on the left. Very odd, it's like the camera had a blind spot. ;-)

1 week agopermalink

Great review, although I'm hoping for an update of the 50S due to cost and managing files...

1 week agopermalink

If Fuji can sell the 50R for ~$3000, which is probably the appropriate price point for it, I can start seeing a lot more adoption for the system.

1 week ago*permalink

@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.

1 week ago*permalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

RhonaldJR

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.

1 week ago*permalink

Sony has not released, nor appears to have any plans to release, a new lower-end version of their 44x33 BSI sensor. There is only the 100MP IMX461 (in colour and monochrome variants).

I suspect the only way to offer intermediate options, such as a replacement to the GFX 50S, is by de-contenting their top-tier model. I.e. no IBIS, and stripping out other features. Perhaps it would be possible to include those features, but with the old generation sensor (by getting a supply-side deal), but there are so many liabilities to the old design in terms of read-out speed that I'm not sure how many people that would appeal to.

There is also the new-tech 150MP IMX411, but the much larger 53x40mm sensor is of course incompatible with anything that Fuji is offering.

1 week agopermalink

RhonaldJR

True, maybe things will change in a years time (no hurry, let them release the Mark II by early 2021, not an issue).

Or, something could come out of this: https://www.eoshd.com/2018/06/samsung-joins-forces-with-fujifilm-will-apply-new-tech-to-large-sensor/

1 week agopermalink

Pixel8888

@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.

1 week ago*permalink

Thanks guys all sensible. I'm sure I'm not alone saying I just cant pay 10k on a camera I would never see the value but I can push 5k as a keen enthusiast if it's a bit special

1 week agopermalink

M Lammerse

An excellent payable (relative) mid format camera for the market, now there should be a market for this camera.

1 week agopermalink

We will see. The camera is a technical success according to this review and others. Now comes the question of whether it will be a commercial success.

1 week agopermalink

It is sold out everywhere; Fuji says the demand for the camera far exceeded their expectations.

I would say the GFX-100 is selling a whole lot for its type of camera.

1 week agopermalink

Big, slow and massively expensive. No matter how good the image quality is and no matter how fast Canon and Sony can compete with resolution on FF, the camera is doomed as FF competition. As MF and those with means it looks awesome.

1 week agopermalink

Priaptor

Clueless comment. The camera is "doomed"? LMAO. They will sell as many as they can produce, just like the GF lines that preceded it. Eat your heart out.

1 week agopermalink

'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.

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

I don’t think this trying to compete with FF

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

Priaptor

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.

1 week agopermalink

stevelond

I disagree. Not everyone needs speed.

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

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...

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

Priaptor

Bigsensor, same here.

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

Well of course it's doomed as a FF competitors because it's in a totally different (and probably niche) market. But I think Fuji is onto something good, and IF MF does become the "new FF" market, Fuji will already have their foot in the door with affordable options while the others (Sony, Nikon, Canon) try to figure it out (if it even gets to that). Plus, Fuji is giving Sigma and PhaseOne a run for their money (not to mention Hasselblad although I consider them to be a separate category even though they are also MF--Fuji is more towards the budget/enthusiast market, Hasselblad is marketed more towards the professional market).

1 week ago*permalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

Fuji actually make the HC lenses

1 week agopermalink

@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).

1 week ago*permalink

Sirhawkeye I'm glad you know better than fujirumors then because they reported it...

1 week agopermalink

https://www.fujirumors.com/top-3-selling-cameras-and-lenses-for-june-on-fujirumors-fujifilm-gfx-100-beats-x-t3/

Do you have a link for their report? I'm curious to see it.
It's not this one, is it?

If it is, then please see this statement:
"Of course, the rankings below are representative only for the FujiRumors community and not for overall sales."

And then this
"Only by a hair, but it was enough: the Fujifilm GFX100 sold better (pre-orders included) than the Fujifilm X-T3."

I'm still a bit skeptical of these results especially since FujiRumors states that the rankings are based on the FujiRumor's community and may not represent overall sales. So really, they're not giving the full picture. I'd like to see the real numbers from Fuji to have this be remotely convincing.

1 week ago*permalink

BobT3218

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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

Tomasz_Wk

Could you define “slow”. I once tried the gfx50r and the AF wasn’t that slow. Depends what you shoot.

This camera is faster and more responsive as the previous GFX, so I don’t see any problem.

1 week agopermalink

racin06

Fujifilm has stated that the intent with the GFX 100 is not to compete with FF; therefore, your "doomed as FF competition" is mute.

1 week agopermalink

racin06 If your correct then Fujifilm is gonna feel the squeeze of larger FF sensors biting into the profits of their successful APSC. Prices are similar and there are performance differences that in time will be hard to overcome. I would think that the MF, maybe the 50mp one is designed to compete with FF. If it isn't Fuji is straddling and should have put a foot down in FF. Perhaps they will yet.

1 week ago*permalink

DjangoChained

Holy moly , look at the 4. picture in the Japan-gallery (the lady with the blue jacket in front of flowers)! The details of the jacket's fabric! The skin of her hand!

I surely don't need that kind of resolution for anything, but I'll be damned if it doesn't bring back the fun of pixel peeping!

1 week agopermalink

DjangoChained

The nail polish on her right middle finger could be done better.

1 week agopermalink

tbasher

Oh yeah? Check out my middle finger! nhn

1 week agopermalink

GabrielZ

This is the first time I’ve seen a perfect Image Quality (for RAW) rating for a camera on DPReview. Yet the banding issue limits this camera’s sensor to about only 13 stops of DR. The latest Sony FF has 15 with only slightly less ‘real world’ resolution. It’s going to be interesting to see what the same rating on that camera will be once it’s fully reviewed too.

1 week agopermalink

As if DR is the pinnacle of image quality.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

@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.

1 week ago*permalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

otto k

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) ...

1 week agopermalink

Chris Dodkin

@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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

@otto k

So by that logic, the gfx100 scaled down to 8mp will have more DR than the sony

1 week agopermalink

otto k

@pnad - everything else being the same - yes. Twice the surface - one stop advantage. Here it's a bit less.

1 week agopermalink

DR is a marginal attribute of a sensor. For most pictures DR the span between 13 and 15 stops is irrelevant and no one can see it in the final output.

Not saying its not important for some shooters. But its not important for most pictures that people actually take.

1 week agopermalink

Eric Hensel

"Not saying its not important for some shooters. But its not important for most pictures that people actually take."
So you're saying it *is* important.

1 week agopermalink

Slaginfected

I just had a look at the stuff Jim Kasson did. There are 2 things to note with the 16 bit files: (a) AF striping (which has been reported already in the MF forums here some time ago), and (b) the colors are actually still good, even after the 6 stop push.

Now this isn't all that surprising, but as usual, the forum crowd, with some exceptions, fails to see that, and JK has shown that exactly this kind of detail slips past him time and again.

Which also means that things are somewhat more complex, and assuming that a similar / same DR for 14 and 16 bit leads to the same results is blindingly ignoring certain computational basics in connection with digitized analogue signals (assuming that no dithering is applied).

The other point completely missed is tonal resolution, because there are cases where this may actually matter -- where you either need fine tonal resolution directly, or because the scene DR is so small that you have to spread it. Again, no dithering in PP => problems.

6 days agopermalink

aris14

"...From the point of view of image quality alone, the GFX 100 is the best camera we've ever reviewed (though its larger sensor 150MP peers should out-perform it)..."

This is not journalism, especially in Technical Press niche...

1 week agopermalink

It does have the best image quality we've ever tested, so I'm not sure why you think I shouldn't say that. However, that's not the full story and there are limitations to it as a camera, which are discussed in the text that follows.

1 week ago*permalink

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

1 week agopermalink

aris14

@Richard Butler

Because Richard reservations of any kind do not have a place in a review of an existing product performance. Especially if given product is "compared" with another with different (superior in this case) specifications, i.e larger sensor.
Would you ever write that "this APC camera is the best camera we've ever reviewed (though its larger sensor DSLRs peers should out-perform it)..."?
I think that in the best case your rhetoric speculation is just an obvious ascertainment, in the worse it may perceived as an implying comment of "something in this product is somehow shady", both undermining your conclusion.
So you could omit the text in parenthesis or you could express your curiosity as for how it performs to an already scheduled review of its peer. Personal beliefs, expectations, no matter if they are well founded, are irrelevant in an evaluation article published in technical press context.
It's called deontology.

1 week agopermalink

cjb

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

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

Eric Hensel

"Would you ever write that "this APC camera is the best camera we've ever reviewed (though its larger sensor DSLRs peers should out-perform it)..."?"
False comparison. APSC and FF are widely considered as different categories, while (no matter how much it tweaks your nose) all the MF cameras Richard refers to, are considered one category. It also needs to be pointed out that Richard didn't say "best camera we've ever reviewed".

1 week agopermalink

eivissa1

What surprise me the most about the video quality ("impressive" due to DPreview), that the quality is more or less on par with the video quality of my old LX100.... The Fuji is sharper than the LX100 but the amount of detail is about the same.

1 week ago*permalink

HB1969

I would have expected the resolution of the panasonic in pixel shift mode to be much better. It looks somewhat mushy. I don't agree that it retains the same level of detail. Have a closer look at lithograph on the right...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx100&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50r&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=4&attr126_2=2&attr126_3=4&normalization=full&widget=687&x=-0.49860496826910283&y=0.23058741661076315

It appears that pixel shift delivers higher resolution but not equal to the MP count.

1 week agopermalink

HB1969

PS I don't mean to say "mushy" to be a troll, I just don't know how else to describe it.

1 week agopermalink

Leandros S

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

1 week agopermalink

HB1969

"not talking about the same Panasonic model as elvissa1" Yep, I realised that sometime after I posted :/
"with these high resolution test shots, it almost always makes a difference where exactly you are looking:"
The resolution certainly looks identical in the sample you posted but I would argue that there isn't as much fine detail to resolve in that portion of the scene as the portion I posted. Look at any part of the scene with extreme fine detail and the S1 doesn't have the same resolution as the 96MP it claims. OTOH, S1 users should still be happy about the resolution boost from 24MP regardless.

2 days agopermalink

WOW - Fujifilms earnings report for Q1 FY2020 has been released today....

The figures are..... quite dramatic for the imaging business so to say!

Revenue has gone down from 87.9 Billion Yen to 74.6 Billion yen (-15.1%)
Operating income - Year to year Q1 2019 from 12.2 billion yen to 4.5 billion yen Q1 2020. Dropped 63.2 percent!

Quote from the financial report:
"In the electronic imaging business, the sales of entry-level mirrorless digital cameras decreased under severe market conditions. The sales of middle- and high-end models were strong including FUJIFILM X-T30 launched in March 2019, and FUJIFILM GFX 100 launched in June 2019.

Revenue decreased due to such factors as declined sales of instant photo systems and mirrorless digital cameras. Operating income decreased due to the revenue decrease.

Excerpt of the report: https://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/pdf/investors/finance/materials/ff_2020q1_001.pdf

1 week ago*permalink

MirkoK

doesnt matter, bank of japan to the rescue, they will simply buy all the fuji stocks!

1 week agopermalink

TheWhiteDog

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.

1 week agopermalink

GabrielZ

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 😔

1 week agopermalink

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..

1 week agopermalink

TheWhiteDog

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.

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

GabrielZ

TheWhiteDog my sentiments exactly.

1 week agopermalink

@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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

@Ducan M: don't panic

1 week agopermalink

I am not panicing - But they are actually doing worse at the moment than some other companies that have been in deep sh!t. However Fujifilm has been touting a lot of how well they were doing. So this comes as a surprise so to say. Seems like Fujifilm is unable to attract enough new customers from Canon and Nikon any longer to sustain their level of revenue now CaNikon have entered the MILC market.

It also seems that the cheaper FF offerings we see these days lead to a slowdown in sales of the X-Series. In the long run that still is a potential cause for many headaches to come at the Fujifilm management level.

1 week ago*permalink

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

1 week agopermalink

@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..

1 week agopermalink

Stujomo

No a phone isn't really a camera, it's replaced the camera for the happy snappers that generally used compacts and for many it's fine for holiday snaps. However those that are serious about their photography will still want a real camera with decent lenses. Phones make pretty crappy cameras to be honest it's just the happy snappers don't care because it's convenient, always with them and uploads to social media are easy.
In the past SLRs and rangefinders were really only used by pros and enthusiasts. SLR owning happy snappers were not really so common most had a compact of some sort.
The beginning of the DSLR era was a bubble for camera manufacture now the bubbles burst and it's back to reality for them.

1 week agopermalink

xjuanx

Just once I would like to see any of the GFX compared to a medium format camera rather than a DSLR. All the cons mentioned. Control dials, Autofocus performance, Portrait orientation grip, Portrait orientation controls and dial setup should be evaluated with a medium format eye. That and the most obvious, value. I can say Im biased as I am a GFX-S user, but why I got into this camera is to get my feet in the medium format world. And for me the camera outweighs any cons from other medium format cameras. No YouTube reviewer, blogger has ever compared these to other medium format cameras. Without the release of GFX cameras, I could never afford diving into digital medium format cameras.

1 week ago*permalink

Yes, a comparison with a PhaseOne and a Hasselblad H6D camera, in terms of how to work with those systems, through the eyes of a professional who depends on these systems, is very welcome.

The video with the fashion photographer was nice, but it isn't a full on comparison.

Given the versatility of the GFX100, it might be quite a rare beast.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

Richard Butler: thanks for the answer. Will we see a comparison article with the PhaseOne soon?

1 week agopermalink

Fishera

@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

1 week agopermalink

PhotoRotterdam - We certainly hope to do something, but the next month looks horrendously busy, so I don't want to make any promises.

1 week agopermalink

xjuanx

Love to see more comparisons between them and get off this kick with the DSLR comparisons. I don't recall a Canon 5d Mk IV compared to the Olympus EM1, just my rational on these types of conclusions. But I do get what market Fuji is attempting to grab. Im a long ways from the GFX100. Im hoping it will keep improving and bring the prices down over time, long term having one for the IQ alone would be amazing. Maybe in another 5 years.

1 week ago*permalink

TORN

I wonder why those cameras from Fuji do not utilize the „vastly superior“ xtrans pattern... ;-))) Following Fuji logic this camera could be so much better. Or the other way around: why not stop this nonsense with the x-series?

1 week ago*permalink

Hausner85

I use Fujifilm and love it. But i agree. X-trans may have been useful at 16mp but now it is redundant. It offers no advantage and create some small inconveniences. But Japaneses companies are often very stubborn and when they accept one idea they have a problem of letting it go.

1 week agopermalink

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

1 week agopermalink

doragon

Probably too computationally expensive to demosaic 100MP of X-Trans on the fly. Also, at those resolutions all the problems that its trying to solve don't matter that much.

1 week agopermalink

MirkoK

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

1 week agopermalink

MightyBo

I have the X-H1 und GFX50 R. On the H1 like with the other X-Trans cameras you will hardly find moire. In the GFX50 R results is plenty of moire, one of the downsides. On the 100, at least in the test pictures, you do not find much moire. This is due to the higher resolution. So there is no need for X-Trans und you do not have the down sides anymore (mostly people that are bashing against x-trans, because they do not know how to process them).

1 week ago*permalink

lnsmr

Great camera for sure, and reasonable size (compared to Panasonic SR1?) for such a larger sensor. My issue is the lack of fast lens. The GF110 seems to be the fastest at F2, compared to F1.2 lens for FF. The GF110 F2 bokeh is probably comparable to 85/1.4, but that doesn't help ISO sensitivity. Really wonder if there are some study on the trade off.

1 week agopermalink

fast lenses are used to create a thin depth of field, not to keep the iso down. With modern sensors, just upping the ISO is a far better approach than trying to do a hyper focal shot at low aperture.

With a medium format, a f2 lens delivers super thin DOF which is already very hard to use (at 100mp). Having a lower aperture lens would only make those lenses huge and heavy and not adding any value from a practical photographer point of view.

1 week ago*permalink

Petka

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.

1 week agopermalink

ecka84

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".

1 week ago*permalink

"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.

1 week ago*permalink

lnsmr

A lot of thoughtful answers. Was skeptical of higher pixel counts for a while and stay at 24MP with FF. Lately, the IQ of Leica Q2 during daylight convinced me of the high megapixel benefits, so the 100MP of GFX is definitely useful for many applications. Hope the platform catches on and companies like Sigma produces fast primes.

1 week agopermalink

MightyBo

Funny argumentation from FF users! If APS-C users use this argumentation against FF they get smashed.

Just look at the images of the GFX 100. Than you know! The problem ist more that not everybody is able to shoot with it and getting perfect results.

1 week agopermalink

ecka84

Look, in many cases FF costs as much or even less than crop. And that's the main argument here. While the pseudo-medium GFX format is a lot more expensive and it doesn't really offer much extra oomph with native lenses.

1 week agopermalink

Sara Valentine

So what would it take to get above 90%?

1 week agopermalink

Thematic

This, as they clearly listed:

Control dials feel small and cheap
Autofocus performance isn't impressive compared to smaller format cameras
Portrait orientation grip is slim and slippery
Portrait orientation controls don't mimic normal orientation layout
On-sensor AF causes banding, slightly limiting usable dynamic range
We found it hard to find a dial setup that worked smoothly

And remember its video is worse than the $1399 XT3

This GFX is a fantastic camera however!

1 week ago*permalink

Leicalika

Ms. Valentine; start with correcting DPR "cons" for one
but that would make a good reason for a Mark 2

1 week ago*permalink

telawrence

wow, less trolls than usual here so this must be a good camera. There must be the usual comment somewhere about how Canon ergonomics and Canon colors are better, it crops up on almost every review.

1 week agopermalink

technotic

Thanks for bringing it up.

1 week agopermalink

edn80

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.

1 week agopermalink

User9362470513

Fewer, not less.

1 week agopermalink

Revenant

Leicas are also out of reach for most people, but it doesn't stop the trolls at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

1 week agopermalink

Leicalika

SONY, please make a 6x6-6x7 sensor camera and make it as small as possible
which you know you can do and maybe are doing as we speak

1 week agopermalink

Thematic

Why?

They make the sensors for ALL these medium format cameras. No need to start a new lens mount and all that investment when they can profit from Pentax, Hasselblad, Fuji and others.

1 week agopermalink

Teila Day

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.

1 week agopermalink

MightyBo

SONY, please make a 6x6-6x7 sensor camera and make it as small as possible

😂 one solution could be 6x6mm! 😂

1 week agopermalink

Relaxed

Phase One is going belly up in 8 months.

1 week agopermalink

MirkoK

well, their venture capital "owner" left the ship already, according to rumors, so yes, maybe but rather doubtful

1 week agopermalink

Tango 55

Now THOSE images I can crop!

1 week agopermalink

TORN

AND you can even crop the camera into something small and affordable - the x-t3. ;-)))

1 week agopermalink

PedroMZ

careful now ,crop by half and you will be left with ONLY 25mpx. Hardly enough for a screen display!

1 week agopermalink