For a Fuji X user who is looking after more image quality, the Fuji GFX can be an option, it will be costly , but the step up in image quality from xtrans will be justified. However, for anyone coming from full frame high res. camera such as D810, D850, Z7 , A7RIII or S1R, the tiny step of image quality of the GFX is far far from being worth the cost of the upgrade.

These medium format sensors are barely larger than FF. So image quality is barely better not even noticeable in many cases. Now is it better enough to overcome the vast gulf in lenses and cost and AF performance. Na

GoodKnight, I almost agree with you (except for image quality). I've tried a GFX50R (rental), and it left me with mixed feelings. Image quality is a bit superior to those 45Mp full frames, but... usability of GFX is questionable and at that price point there is no excuse for Fuji. I was disappointed by usability, it just a pain to use a GFX compared to any DSLR, maybe we can get used to it over time, but even when getting used to the camera , it's never going to be as comfortable as Canon/Nikon/Pentax full frame bodies. The 645z is big in comparison to Fuji GFX, but handling is a lot better.

Well, high resolution / multi-frame, will reduce noise more than it increases resolution if the lens isn't that sharp, super-resolution won't improve image quality that much in the corners (where lens sharpness falls and aberrations become more visible), and the multi-frame translates into some artifacts if there are moving parts in the image. For me, a Z7 (or equivalent) with a set of sharp primes will deliver similar single frame images , will cost less, easier to handle and be smaller to carry around. I'm waiting for Nikon to release their 20mm 1.8 and 85 1.8. When we know the kind of photographs we want to take, we know the focal length of the prime to be used. A number of professionals aren't using medium format, they simple use good primes. Since the sensor size of the GFX vs FF is only about 1.22x and 1.33, a good primes on FF will bridge the gap.

Lets see, the GFX50R sensor is 170% in diagonal measurement larger than FF. Yep, hardly any difference - SMH

"So pretty much still life, pedestrians and landscapes" Hmmm, you forgot urban landscape, architecture and portraits.

So essentially, its a good camera for taking photos of anything that is not birds or sports. Or, essentially, its good most everything. There is not a single person on the planet of any photography background who would do 15 minutes of research and think this is a camera for birds and sports.

Sports and birds are 90% of photography?

The FF market is too crowded.

Sorry.

My main reason for returning the X-T3 was high-ISO noise in my candid photos. I just could not accept the increased amount of noise and loss of detail. The second reason is AF speed indoors. With my D810 or D850, I can grab it, point it, and shoot almost instantly. With the X-T3, it takes too long to acquire focus. I have to spend so much more time trying to get it to focus on what I want it to (usually people). The third reason is reduced background blur. Of course one can get a large aperture lens to improve it, but you can do the same with full frame. You should try out full frame to see if you like it.

Dan - Fuji was smart, they chose 2 formats that don't overlap (APS-C/medium format). Why would Fuji release a FF when there is very little image quality increase over APS-C? It is smart to jump up to the next sensor size.

no they didnt. They have won the aps-c market and they were not going to win the full frame market. They needed to create a new market. They have done it

Some people are far too critical but cant even shoot properly :)

It's funny how people say FF market is crowded.

FF has: Canon, Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Pentax, Sony. Although Pentax and Leica, just like Sigma aren't really competitors in the arena.

Now with MF, there is: Fuji, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Phase One. So that's just one fewer brand, and Hassy even has 2 systems much more distinguished compared to Canon/Nikon MILC/DSLR pairs. And if anything, Sigma FF will compete in this arena rather than in its own size.

I'd say MF is quite a bit more crowded honestly and even if Fuji is probably eating everyone else's lunch when it comes to market share (dunno how Pentax is doing), I doubt they are making as much from MF as they could've from FF.

Everything I've read and been told suggests that quantization noise isn't a problem until you get down to the last few bits. The magnitude of photon shot noise is greater than the sampling precision, so you're oversampling most of the tones of your image (this is how Nikon is able to lossily compress its Raws without any visible loss of data: the highlights are so monstrously oversampled that you can compress it down a lot without any meaningful loss).

I think your 6dB figure would only apply to a perfect signal, rather than one that's inherently noisy. The Sci/Tech forum will be able to discuss this in much more detail than I can and I'd be interested to see their responses.

The ISO standard is based on middle grey rendering, so it's always a stumbling block when trying to discuss ETTR (which is the implication of what you're saying), and what 'correct' exposure is. That's essentially a separate issue...

ie: if we assume F4 was needed for sufficient DoF and 1/250th was needed for movement-freezing purposes, then ISO 6400 may well be the 'correct' ISO in terms of giving a JPEG with middle grey in the correct place. This particular scene requires more highlight retention than the standard JPEG, so what's the correct response?

In a camera that adds more analog gain with each ISO step, you'd need to drop the ISO to reduce gain or reduce the exposure (which would increase photon shot noise). As an alternative, many cameras have a DR mode that reduces the gain/ISO relationship by one stop (or one/two stops in the case of Fujifilm), then has a tone curve to incorporate the additional highlights into the JPEG. In fact setting the Fujifilm to ISO 6400, DR400% would have achieved pretty much what our processed image does, out-of-camera.

In my experience it's not. But if it is in yours, ok!

There exists a Human ability to process the opinions of others with the same part(s) of the brain that responds to physical threats. Currently referred to as being “triggered” because these hapless fools are victims of their own triggered amygdalae.
Pitiful, or more precisely, pitiable.

@Dan- I can assure you that potters do not hammer on about kilns and clay they way photographers do with camera gear. No one gets mocked for owning a Skutt or a Paragon, for example. Nor do the painters I know sit around to furiously debate brushes and canvas. Audiophiles and car enthusiasts certainly do, but in the world of art, photographers are a class of petty all their own.

You're right, with such a tiny difference there is no reason to choose full frame over APSC.

More than twice the area? Tiny?

One stop difference is tiny in the grand scheme of things.

DarnGoodPhotos - There's the opportunity for a 2/3EV difference between full frame and 44 x 33mm medium format. There are some cameras (the D850 and Z7 specifically) that can close much of that gap by having a base ISO that's 2/3EV lower*.

It is a non-sequitur to extrapolate from this to say a gap nearly twice as large is also irrelevant, even before you get to the fact that there's no technology difference that might try to bridge the gap.

*Speaking strictly in camera terms. Differences in lens performance can still make a big difference.

From a logical point of view, it's not inconsistent to say 'amount y isn't that important to me, but 2y is.'

There's also a question of diminishing returns. y better than 'really good may' not be as significant as 2y better than 'pretty good'.

But, to be absolutely clear, the review does not say '2/3EV doesn't make any difference,' it says 'the GFX's 2/3EV potential advantage is reduced by technology differences in specific instances.'

Scared? Are you joking I can buy whatever I want when I want, so why would I be scared? The point is that the review (and common sense) proves out that the IQ is about the same as ANY modern FX camera. And let's be honest. Virtually ALL cameras deliver fantastic IQ these days, so only fanboys split those hairs. Ergonomics and AF ability generally stand at the top these days. Good AF isn't just for sports; that's silly. It's required for event shooting, wildlife, candids, runway...just about any subject outside of landscape will benefit from superior AF. And let's not be silly about lenses either. Canon, Nikon and Sony all have awesome glass, not to mention spectacular 3rd party support. There's just no practical reason to bother with this Fuji for most shooters. And if Fuji builds something I want, I won't be "scared" because I'll just buy it. ;-)

Mr Hollywood why don't you buy one (or two just in case) test it and back up your bold statements. And btw AF is for lazy photographers. If the camera does everything what is your role and skill after all?

You must be joking. I was doing MF on large format cameras in the 80's. AF or MF is a SKILL. The talent is in lighting, technique and composition. AF is for "lazy photographers?"
Seriously? LOL!

Sorry I was a kid in the 80s and I was looking at my father's MF film camera having no clue about how it functioned. Nowadays even a little kid can see the little green box and push a button. I didn't want to sound offensive but you seem to have something against Fujifilm maybe a little envy about them going MF while Casonik still milking the FF market.

LOL...I've owned plenty of Fuji gear, but you're not being honest about this particular camera. As pointed out, it offers no advantage in IQ that is meaningful and everyone has great lenses in systems that are more advanced than this particular camera. Forget about brands and look at capability in a realistic way as it applies to professional usage. Advanced cameras tend to be pretty demanding, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I can show someone how to use AF quickly, but ISO, DOF, lighting, composition and many other aspects of the creative process remain the same and take years to even come close to mastering. This particular camera is inferior to a D850 or Sony A7rIII in too many respects.

@Mr Hollywood.
I think that you are limiting your view to the GFX50R and it's weaknesses only. You need to see larger. This camera is a cheap way to get into the GFX system. It's not bad at all.

The next generation of GFX cameras that fuji will release soon will be 100MP and more. We will need to wait longer until FF hits the 100MP and I'm not sure if the current FF lenses can perform above 100MP (or even 80MP). But we know that GFX lenses can.

The next generation of GFX will have a better AF that will be "good enough" for most photographers.

Why would I want to get into a system that needs more time? Shouldn't I just be smart and enjoy the 20K worth of Nikon FX gear until the GFX stuff improves and actually gives me something significant to upgrade for?
Again: Overall this camera offers zilch to a photographer who already owns a good FX setup. And a 90 MP version will only offer advantages for a select few. I don't mind spending money, but I need to get something tangible for it.

I'm not constrained by brands. The quality of the tool is all that matters. If Casio makes a better camera, I'll buy it. I shoot Nikon because overall it's the best tool for me. If a better one comes along, I'll buy it. Brand bias is kiddie stuff.

All of those cameras you mentioned are great, but can any of them produce a full-resolution 4:3 ratio image?

No one noticed that the Z7 and A7III images were shot at f5.6 and the GFX50S + R images were shot at f8, the diffraction component at f8 start to kick in, making it look like the full frame is as good as the GFX. Is this comparison valid? Yes and No, it depends if the f settings is in diffraction limited territory or not.

Fuji isn't diffraction limitted at f/8. Its pixel pitch is 5.27 microns, and it's as sharp as it gets at f/8.

#808_freedive, there isn't a single full res photo in that gallery. Those were heavily processed and denoised btw...

#808_freedive, come on Freedive, we both know that those aren't relevant samples ;) Many of those were taken using a FF though. So, it's the processing not the camera! FF and MF are not world's apart, they're almost equal/indistinguishable.

Interesting, thank you! The 50R is quite a beast despite its nominally compact credentials, but to someone who used to shoot 6x9 film on a not-really-so-old Fuji rangefinder, it presses some nostalgia buttons. Something like the customizable, modular concept camera recently shown would be a great addition to the line, I think.

So, for the 50r, I ran them through Capture One, made multiple exposures, ran them through HDR Photomatix, resized result to 30x40. For the Z7, ran through NX-D, and then did the same. Then I looked at both results using a XNView to simulate looking at a printed picture somewhat close.

Result? While the Z7 lens is definitely sharper than what was used in the 50R, there definitely is faint banding in the shadows in the Z7 in a "real world" HDR shot. Doesn't jump out at you, but it's enough to be annoying for an HDR shot.

In my opinion, using the DPReview raws, I would personally go with the 50r. See for yourself.

z7 closeup
https://www.dropbox.com/s/za8xuzn1pzhpvvs/Z7%20shadows.png?dl=0

50r closeup
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qq39k7zze2o60c1/_50r%20shadows.png?dl=0

z7 full
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbkjkfhss04xid1/DSC_8592_RR_p00_25_50_tonemapped%203045.jpg?dl=0

50r full
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4lnpcjn95gq4uzu/DSCF1025_p00_25_50_tonemapped%20a%203040.jpg?dl=0

What really would have been interesting is if DPReview would have done the same shot, but also with the Nikon D850 and Sony A7rIII.

I swear, you people seem to be native English speakers but your reading comprehension is appalling.

This specific MF sensor *is* better than full frame ones but there's not *that much* of a difference as it's just a 2/3 gap (which is very close to the difference between m43 and aps-c) rather than the sizable 4/3 between FF and aps-c (not even to mention the difference between FF and m43).

This specific sensor is old, the megapixel count isn't that high at all and it's not very indicative of what this MF format can produce, so there's a difference between it and FF but, especially with a FF that has a base ISO of 64, it's not that huge a difference. The next sensor Fuji'll use (100MP BSI with on-sensor PDAF) should demonstrate that difference compared to FF much more effectively.

Is that clear enough? What do you care about MF I don't even know, why are m43 people always hung-up about sensor size I don't really know.

I am not sure who you were addressing with your comments but I don't really appreciate your condescending and sarcastic tone.

You seem to be suggesting that people who use one camera format (i.e. "m43 people") should not care or be interested in another camera format. As if to say that their current camera equipment somehow locks them into that format and defines them as people. A very strange and dogmatic outlook on life.

Pete, you may be thinking of the "photographers" here who bought " FF" cameras and loudly proclaimed that smaller sensors were inadequate. But all of a sudden, they have a hundred reasons why no one needs a larger sensor, that the price is outrageous, that it is pretentious, etc., etc.

@kodachromguy Indeed. The goalposts get moved around a bit, don't they!

Thanks for posting those John. Thats pushing the files more than I did... but I lift the shadows and pull back highlights as part of my standard processing. Z7 banding is *awful* when I lifted the exposure by just one stop!!

Honestly, they both look like crap and unusable that way.
I don't care which one is a bit less of a crap.

> Honestly, they both look like crap and unusable that way.
I don't care which one is a bit less of a crap.

FYI I lowered sharpening as far down as I can go on both pics. Doing some sharpening on both pics made the shadow details a bit better, but it also emphasized the banding on the Z7 even more. The 50r shadows sharpen up nicely.

Lens could be part of it also.

First, you compare an image from the Z7 using half pixels for autofocus and compare it to image from the contrast detect system of the 50r where the noise profile of pixels isn't affected by AF pixels. You could compare the 50R images to D850 images and the banding would be gone. Secondly, you ignore the fact that in practice, the D850 allow 1 stop faster aperture (1 stop lower ISO or shutter speed) thanks to larger DoF on the D850. Moreover the D850 has optically stabilized lenses available which again provide a few stop advantage to the D850 , and the 50r doesn't have that advantage because GFX lenses aren't stabilized. So, in real life shooting conditions (landscape), the difference between the 50r and D850 will be negligeable and often the D850 more convenient because D850 has better autofocus and also dual gain BSI sensor, while on the other hand the GFX sensor is older FSI tech.

In real life landscapes for either of these cameras to show their world class they need to be shot on a tripod.

I'm just doing what DPReview suggests to compare the Z7 raw to the 50r raw. It would have been nice if they had shot with other cameras such as the 850 or A7rIII to see what the results would have been.

I redid the screen shots where I turned off all noise reduction to see what the results were. It seems the default NR on Capture One was a bit heavy handed.

Result? Z7 banding is more pronounced. 50r looks pretty clean at +5ev. Maybe the Z7 lens is a bit sharper at the edges? Don't know. If I were doing an HDR shot, I would choose the 50r based on this.

Z7 without NR
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2418320136/photos/3864461/z7-nx-d-no-nr-copy

50r without NR
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2418320136/photos/3864460/50r-capture-one-no-nr-copy

Felts: “I lifted the exposure one stop as usually do” ? Why? You like a worse starting point than you need?

Where is this camera now? It compete with the S1R and Z7 that will deliver image with a little less dynamic range and lot faster autofocus, but autofocus speed isn't a big issue, the bigger issue is autofocus after sunset where the GFX will end up being focused manually while the S1R and Z7 will autofocus effortlessly. The GFX is an old camera released two years ago. The same sensor was used in other camera long ago , those older medium format camera have better af capability than the GFX50, and Fuji know it... they are working on it for the GFX100. Currently, for shooting models at fashion shows it is impossible to get any decent focused frames on walking models due to thinner DoF from the larger sensor and slow AF of the GFX50. The best way to know is to try it.

Classic DPR reply. Thanks for your insight.

@mferencz Ahhhh, and see, your judgement of others is where your argument fails. If you had merely said that you believe the camera is a market mistake by Fuji, fair enough, but you just *had* to make it personal by saying that @felts wasted their money.

That's called trolling.

Looking for the buyers remorse threads, and can't seem to find them. Wait, buyers of these cameras probably don't frequent forums.

Felts, it's not just the sensor, it's the MF lenses. You can't beat good MF lenses, as the lenses deliver incredible information to the sensor. As for the test, find some good Pentax 67 lens and mount it on a modern crop DSLR via the adapter, and the results will blow your socks off.

@mferencz So you think Felts is trying to justify his GFX purchase? What about me? Bought GFX last April, bought A7r III last September. As amazing as the A7r III is, GFX outperforms A7r III easily, even in pixel shift mode. And I agree with everything Felts is saying. Do you see me justifying my newest toy? A7r III is very good for where performance is needed, but for the ultimate IQ, GFX still has no match.

@TETNO... it's not my job to review cameras (judging by the misery on here, a thankless task) but I think the only way to do this is to play with the RAW files yourself on a decent monitor. I like to tinker a little with my images, pushing by up to two stops (but usually less) and flattening the image by pulling back highlights/lifting shadows. It's not what everyone would do, but *for me* the GFX files are far far more malleable than my FF output.

@Felts "but *for me* the GFX files are far far more malleable than my FF output."

Absolutely correct. That's something people who haven't used these cameras don't get to come to realize. There's a lot more to these MF cameras than just ultimate image quality. Utility plays a large role for many photographers and being able to beat-up a file in post beyond what can be done with a Canon, Nikon or Sony FF file can make all the difference in the world to someone looking to get paid.

@Teila Day I agree with you completely. GFX, X1D, 645Z all the cameras with this sensor produces amazing files. Ultimate quality comes from these files. Even the D850 or A7r III files are not on the same level as my GFX. People who never used this camera will never know.

@Duncan M This is a 2013 sensor made by Sony, not even designed for mirrorless, but Fuji and Hasselblad tweaked it to work on mirrorless cameras. This sensor was used first in Pentax 645z. So it is what it is. After this, the next gen sensor is the one that is coming on the next Fuji model: GFX 100S. So considering a 5-6 year old sensor, this still keeps up well.

@Duncan.. *you* might favor what others don't feel they need (or want) as badly as more resolution. Fuji is on the right path I say.

well I'm really waiting for that but I still feel that if I made the jump, it would be to the real MF camera...

@Aleks7 I mean, you can do that today. Just shell out the money.

@Seragram what do you want next? A flip screen and a selfie button on a medium format camera? How about a paper cartridge option so you print on the go as well?

Totally agree. Shallow DOF is an inconvenience of fast lenses and only clever marketing made them sale-able as artful.

Fast lenses are for low light, primarily. Blurry backgrounds are artistically neutral, not an end in themselves. Sometimes it works, mostly it looks like you are trying too hard.

Color film was a fad, too.

It's a cinematic look. An artistic tool which has existed a little while before social media, or even digital cameras or monitors. And, when used well, captivating, transcendent. It's also in contrast to the most common type of photo today: the mobile phone photo.

You don't need a $5000 camera to get background defocus. A $100 used Nikon DX can give you some sort of beautiful background blur. This camera does it differently than that, or FF. It's a unique look that I enjoyed in the DPReview sample gallery for this camera. But, at a high price. Regardless, it's unique and awesome.

Well said.

This is because those pros are more interested in story telling than creaming buttery-smooth blur circles.

@57even, but you know lens makers are selling lens with titles like "bokeh master" and all that... so... is it just marketing?

If a camera costing half as much money can do most/nearly all of what the camera you're reviewing can do (plus a whole lot else), how would it be reasonable to conclude: 'I'll judge it only by its marketer's intent and pretend it's magically distinct.'

Richard, I need to build a house and haul some cement bags and bricks, sometimes to drop in two workers. I can buy a decent Mazda CX7 SUV for the price of a used 5-tonne truck. Surely CX7 can haul some bricks? .. Decisions, decisions...

RX100 can do all too. Good photo, good video. It is fast too. So why are people buying FF and lenses and what not? Compare it with other medium format cameras. Are you going to review EOS RP with some APS-C bodies because they might have close price ranges? Maybe with D500? Might as well. Or maybe with a pocket camera that has better video? Or compare it with P1000 because prices are close? No the other cameras will probably be z6, eos r or a73 etc. Then why comparing gfx with FF bodies? One of the most affordable medium format mirrorless camera with the fastest autofocus in its class gets compared with a bunch of FF bodies which are not for the same tasks.

Except, Zvonimir, for your metaphor to be accurate, it would be two vehicles that are essentially just as good at carrying bricks. So the reason for buying the slower vehicle is less clear-cut than it initially sounds.

Richard, I have used that example because I have seen it hapenning. People wanted to carry their bricks in style for their fancy new home, and opted not for truck that is slower but delivers more and more safely, but for stylish passenger vehicle, Mercedes E class I think, with seats covered with a thick blanket. That is what your ccomparison with FF cameras, "comparison" between two different categories, reminded me of.

Zvonimir-Yep, that you will see any Saturday morning at any home improvement store. And the funniest thing is that recovering the seats will cost more than a nice truck!

McFern, real hauling or real bricks, for hours, and days. Just not to hire a regular truck and show yourself as if 'of a lesser status'. And you're right, recovering damage in a luxury car costs more.

doady:
"I shoot 7.1MP. I use a point and shoot camera from 2004. I haven't bought any new camera since. I've been thinking getting either m4/3 or Fuji GFX but I haven't decided." ooookay!

And don't get me wrong, I a very long time dpreview reader, and I see all this marvelous work you put into this service. But in this specific case for me You forgot to understand what MF is great at - and that's not megapixels I think.

I was honestly waiting for Your 50R test, as I'm right now trying to find my next camera [ D850 vs 50R ]. After the review, being a Nikon shooter I should be happy and go with Nikon. Yet i think you missed the opportunity to challenge 50R, find it's excel areas, and find the real value in MF [ of course if it's there somewhere ;) ].

D850 dynamic range is the same, noise level at ISO 64 the same as Fuji @ 100. Detail a very slight advantage but who would even notice? Nice camera, but limited.

For me the advantage of MF is in print. As soon as I open a photo book I can tell if it is Medium/large format or 35mm. The fine detail is noticeable in print. DPR should have a section on prints from the various comparators and the Fuji.

I remember when National Geographic went to 35mm only. The image quality became awful and the pictures weren't worth looking at. A very noticeable difference from 2 1/4" film.

TETNO - the sunset city image is a very wide dynamic range scene and both the GFX and Z7 are showing similar amounts of noise in the shadow areas, which confirms the independent findings of DxO and Bill Claff that this sensor does not offer a significant dynamic range advantage over the Z7 and D850.

And since the Z7/D850 can usually tolerate very, very similar amounts of light per pixel as the GFX, and both record in the same precision (not that that makes much difference), it's difficult to find any rational source for the claimed 'tonality' differences, let alone a way to demonstrate it.

The problem is that "Pro's use MF so it must be great" (with no distinction being made between 44x33 and 54x40 - which absolutely will offer an advantage over FF) isn't something that can be tested, proven or even, apparently, questioned.

RICHARD - first of all - thx for Your comment - I really appreciate it.

Yet I can't agree :(. Sunset city scape. I agree, it's wide, but just not wide enought. It's dynamic range great to demonstrate that FF has wide dynamic range. And that's it :(. In real shooting during bright day You could find very contrasty frames to test. From my perspective sunset flattens the range. It's nice to show shadows tonal space and ISO but it's not good to show dynamic scale. I of course might be wrong but I think You didn't understand my post - I'm not going to defend MF, I'm just saying that You should shoot a photo FF is struggling with.

Second and third areas I proposed I problably hadred to come by yet I think this could be approached from diffrent angle. In this post there are several photogs saying they have both FF and MF and MF is king. Maybe they sholud propose how to check tonality and "look" ;).

Sorry for all this blah blah :), after all You have some great www with great community :).

As long as your cat is not moving too fast ;-)

Indeed

No. It looks like a real camera and reminds of the medium format film days. Fuji nails these models.