Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF

Good point left eye! Maybe I have been defining the word wrong all along.

No camera is perfect. They said that the AF was "slow" but precise and that it gives the best image quality they've seen to date. So yeah. Gold.

Digital shutter must be possible I think, shutting the transfer of data should be more easier than a 50 years old curtain shutter, is it not?

Currently, you cannot use flash with digital shutter, you need hot lights. The reason is simple. With traditional shutter, the flash must fire when the whole sensor is exposed. Otherwise the shutter curtain would cause a shadow, if the flash would fire during their movement. The fastest sync speed means that at that speed the whole sensor gets exposed completely.

Now, a fast electronic shutter is the exact same situation than faster than sync speed shutter action. You cannot sync the flash to it, as the exposure is tied to the reading of the sensor. Basically, it's the same effect than with "rolling shutter" but with flash you'd see it as uneven exposure, as the "rolling electronic shutter" has gathered different amount of the flash light.

High-speed sync could solve this, as it ensures that the flash will last over whole shutter movement (or the time it takes from electronic shutter to pass over the whole sensor).

umeet, thank you for your technical explanation. I see that you know the tec well. However I am sure that some solution could be found in a way to limit the exposure time within the sensor.

...you guys do know that you can high speed sync to 1/4000th sec with the Godox flashes on the GFX. The only real down-side of HSS is the flash power / distance is slightly reduced.

I have to say I love the Godox HSS on the GFX; basically turn the flash on then use any shutter speed you want up to 1/4000th sec, the GFX and flash does the rest, perfect exposures and frozen details.

HSS can solve the problem if you have enough power. HSS has its limitations. It gives little bursts of light which does not give one single exposure but multiple exposures which can affect the exposure on different parts of the subject. If HSS was efficient enough, nobody would give a price of a Mercedes to Hasselblad.

Are you sure about the 'little bursts?' That sounds like strobe flash.

HSS is possible through the flash be able to produce a long flash duration that is spread over the time the moving slot of the shutter takes to transverse the sensor. As a consequence the 'slot' only receives part of the flashes overall power, rather than full-power over the whole frame (as with normal flash sync).

HSS is great despite the slightly loss in power/distance. If you need more power/distance just use a higher power Godox. Like I say the GFX with a Godox does up to 1/4000th sec no problem. It just works, and I'm glad not to using delicate leaf-shutter lenses.

HSS typically requires PWM to lengthen the flash time. Regular speedlight flashtubes have flash duration of about 1/1000s at full power and durations like 1/32000s at the lowest powers (power is adjusted by stopping the electricity to shorten the flash duration).

In typical HSS, the flash is pulsated very rapidly to get long (but small power) flash - like hundreds of pulses within 1/500 - and this is where the "loss of power" comes from with HSS, as the flash tube never gets on its full power. But it is nothing like traditional strobes that flash at like 5-20Hz frequencies - HSS flash have frequencies of kilohertz.

The pulsation also reduces temperatures and load on capacitors - similar operation at full power would not be possible as it would quickly melt the flash and the capacitor recycle time is not sufficient.

But yeah, Godox HSS solves the flash sync speed issue for most occasions.

HSS is a useful alternative for pricey leaf shutter. However digital shutter should be possible to replace leaf shutter for better flash sync. We still use ancient shutter systems.

The answer is global shutter, but it has been quite bad for CMOS so far.

They are coming though with new ideas like EPICs variable ND-filter like shutter in Motion Mount, so maybe some day. And Panansonic has apparently used similar stuff to even create sensor that exposes very high highlights and rest of the image on same sensor with different pixels to get huge DR while in the same time give global shutter functionality too. Sony has managed to something similar that CCD did for CMOS - I guess that one is already available in some Sony videocameras.

But these have been so far compromises (e.g. RED's one eats 1EV of light) or expensive for photography camera to replace something that hasn't been that big of a problem for photographers. Nevertheless, that kinda of electronically controllable whole frame shutter will some day come.

umeet thank you for your elaborate explanation about electronic shutter. I don't understand why shutting down a digital sensor so difficult anyway.

mxx:

The Fuji a good bit better higher ISO body than the D810, may not matter to you though.

Also, I've only ever tried one Nikon lens that is optically as good as the two Fuji fixed focal length lenses for the GFX. That Nikon lens sells for 6000usd.

DX is just easier to type than APS-C (releasing the shift key for the '-' frequently trips me up). And DX is not "smaller than FF", DX means APS-C or even more precisely non-Canon APS-C (ie, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Ricoh, Samsung APS-C).

Maybe they'll release a firmware update for it and some faster lenses.

HowaboutRAW, what would you shoot with it? I'd love it to be a great camera, but with almost the same resolution as a A7RII, with similar image quality, a lot less lenses, a lot worst AF, heavier... I do wonder what would it really be aimed for.

So you think a G16 has a similar quality to an A7RII?

You should definitely shoot more...

HowaboutRAW you're the one that can't tell me a good reason to pick one of those over a camera that costs half the price. So yeah, I'll say that there isn't a good reason to pick one of those over an A7RII.

HowaboutRaw, I admit that I dont know enough about the Fuji lenses to argue otherwise. However, the canon , canon 35 1.4II sigma 50 1.4 art, sigma 85 1.4 art, All easily outresolve the current 50MP sensor. Canon 11-24 f4, 24-70 2.8II, 70-200 2,8II, are also excellent zooms with great color and contrast and fantastic resolving power. there is the canon 24 tseII and 17 TSE, and of course all the big whites. I have not shot Fuji, but would be interested to know if you are speaking from personal side by side test, a scientific test, or simply your observations. As for pixel size, please look at the SYSTEM, when trying to assess.

In the test agains the A7RII is stated that the detail is very very similar in both lenses. And that wasn't even with one of the sharpest sony lenses.... At least on the sony you don't need those Zeiss lenses.

So no, I can't see the obvious reasons... Noise is similar, color is similar, detail is similar, DOF is similar. Why choose the worst camera just to get the same performance from the sensor?

PAntunes,

Thank you for again missing the fact that I've tried both cameras with excellent lenses. I like the Sony A7RII well enough, but if you knew anything about cameras and lenses, you'd know that detail is hardly the only important quality of a lens/camera combination.

Yeah, and with the Sony you do need to shoot Zeiss Batis, or adapt Oti to it, to get the most out of it.

I didn't bring up the 5DSR here, since I've not tried it with anything better than the 85mm f/1.2 Canon lens, which is only very good.

The Fuji is a better higher ISO body than the A7RII, not by much, but by some.

Colour is not similar. Want similar colour, then use a Zeiss on the D810 or better yet a Zeiss on the D750.

I know a thing or two about cameras and lenses... And a thing I know is that I need my cameras to get the photo. There's not point in having the perfect light, perfect subject and a camera that missed the focus by a mile.

And if you knew anything about photography, you'd knew how irrelevant the color is, specially when shooting raw.

I find it quite refreshing that for once (in a long time), AF is not the make or break deciding factor of a gold award on this site. Most cameras work great today, for 90% of the time when we do not need state of the art auto-focus technology.

Rishi Sanyal, have you tried the high shutter speeds 1/4000 +? Do they work well?

@Rishi,

My mistake, thought it did. The thing is that the Fuji files (raws) are the size of the biggest files from the X1D.

My Point is: does this 50MP "Medium Format" (which it isn't) command such an advantage that it justifies a switch from FF? No.

Robin Ducker:

Says you.

The advantages are easy enough to see in the results.

As for "switch", it's unlikely to be an either or choice for most photographers considering this Fuji.

Comment from an actual owner: The GFX is a bit of a retro nightmare for me in comparison. Basically the GFX is a continuation of the D810 (in my mind, with all of the past problems, etc.) but more slumming, like going from a Porsche Cayenne to a Nissan Pathfinder. The GFX is, for my work, not an improvement on the D810, but a come-down. (Lloyd Chamber's Diglloyd blog)
Obviously It is a must-have-one then.

Robin,

Meaning you're an actual owner of the GFX-50S, and own or owed a D810 also?

Who cares what Lloyd Chambers has to say?

My friend, if you are in the know, Lloyd will save Pro's a hell of a lot of money. So, yes people care what he says. Like: don't buy the Fuji 120 F4 because of its significant focus shift, now confirmed with a second sample. Enough.

RD,

Ha, ha.

Had no particular problems with the focus of the 120mm I tried. (I guess there could be some problem with other examples.)

It's a new system, very few will jump to buy it until it has been out for more than a few months.

Have you tried the Hasselblad X1D and all the lenses?

No one cares much about what Lloyd Chambers has to say.

I see you didn't answer the question about being an owner of this Fuji or the Nikon D810.

A7R11...

brendon1000:

I see you're still lying about what I said.

No surprise there.

Never claimed to "own" these lenses and bodies. Learn the difference between "have tried/used" and "own".

Nope, won't be sharing my raws shot with this Fuji GFX-50S, that's with all 3 lenses available in April 2017.

"He refuses to share any of his images cause he claims they are top secret and the government will have him executed if he does! " So more lies.

It's so easy to document your lies, and now it's easy to document your stalking.

RD:

I didn't ask if you owned the Sony A7RII.

Meaning you've still avoided my question.

What does it matter what you said? None of your claims are verifiable. You just make a ton of unverifable claims in your posts that it's very hard to take you seriously. All your claims are easily verifiable with photos but for some weird reason you refuse to share them just like you hide behind a pseudo name. So honestly tell us why anyone should anyone believe your statements if you choose not to give us any proof?

brendon1000:

If you have the gear to try my claims are easy enough to verify.

You stalked me here, you lied about what cameras and bodies I have claimed to have owned.

Now you modify the point to where you could have left it months ago.

Sorry but I call your BS. If you can't show your photos don't try and pass your lies as truth. You are just an anonymous online entity and people shouldnt blindly believe you without verification.

Please: Give it a rest and move on! There are more important things. Exploring and trying out new gear can be fun and interesting. The forums can be too. Relax, enjoy, and create a new image!

brendon1000:

You don't have to believe me, that's fine.

But you got caught lying about my claims, that's a big problem for you and your idea of what passes for truth.

I've tried looking at pictures taken by experts with the GFX50S. Like I said, "I'm not SEEING a compelling reason..."

JackM:

So that's a "No, I've not tried it."

Look, it may not be fore you. And the D810 and K1 are excellent cameras, so are the 5DSR and Sonys. I've only seen one $6000 Nikon lens that bests the 63mm Fuji lens. There are some good Sony G lenses and SonyZeiss lenses, but for the D810 and 5DSR, you'll basically have to shoot Zeiss lenses.

Of course it's a no. Very few people in the world have tried it. If I was the level of pro who got an early copy of the GFX, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. That said, I don't need to handle it in order to evaluate the pictures it takes, which is the ultimate test. And it sounds like the handling and performance might make me even less interested. The IQ is great, but not to the point that I'd consider selling all my gear to afford this. Sure, if $10,000 meant nothing to me, I'd pick one up.

JackM:

Okay, but I have tried it.

"That said, I don't need to handle it in order to evaluate the pictures it takes, which is the ultimate test."

Usually, it's best to try it to see if you can create what you like that others have done with whatever camera/lens, or to see if you have the same problems you see in others' example of work done with the camera/lens.

"Sure, if $10,000 meant nothing to me, I'd pick one up." Okay, that's different. And there are people, not me, to whom that is not a small fortune.

With the DPR image comparison tool, and others around the web like imaging-resource.com, there's really no need to try for yourself, other than to evaluate ergonomics and controls. The very subtle differences between the IQ of the GFX and my 5DSR that I'm seeing in these tools are not enough to make me want to take my comparison any further, or to consider switching systems.

It's probably very slight differences in focus plane.

The Nikon is not in the cityscape shot simply because we didn't have the right lens on-hand at the time to get the 90mm equiv. focal length. Apologies. We would've liked to have included it.

We're also still looking for a better performing 90mm equiv. lens for the Canon for a fairer comparison vs. the Fujifilm GFX 50S. Any ideas? It really needs to be right around 90-95mm for a fair comparison to the Fujifilm's 120/4.

Tamron SP 90 macro or Canon ts-e 90mm.

We tried the 100 mm macro, but couldn't take enough steps back to make it work (you need much more than two steps back to match FOV at those focal lengths).

The Tamron is a good idea, thank you. We'll see if we can get ahold of one of those. Though the Tamron 70-200 is supposed to be great according to Roger Cicala's recent data, but for is it performed worse than the Canon 70-200 (which is why we used the latter on our comparison too). But of course there's copy variation at play.

An exaceration , but a major fault. People should reread the cons and think if it still deserves a gold. A gold rating should be given to cameras that do almost everything will. After all, it is the highest rating.
It may be justifiable on image quality only.

IdM:

That's possible, I've never tried the live view CDAF on the Pentax 645Z. The Fuji GFX-50S has very good CDAF, no not as good as the Panasonic GH5 or the Leica SL--which I realize are a bit beyond CDAF.

Also, my point was that the Pentax doesn't focus as quickly in CDAF as it does in PDAF mode, not that the CDAF system of the 645Z is any better or worse than that in the Fuji GFX-50S.

I like the Pentax 645Z body, however the lenses, including the new ones, could be optically better. But I really like the Fuji GFX 50, and the fixed focal length lenses are optically better than those available for the Pentax.

(Given how good some of the fixed focal length APSC DSLR lenses are from Pentax, I'm sure Pentax can do better.)

IdM:

Sharpness is hardly the only important quality of optically better lenses.

The D800E just by way of example doesn't compete with the D750 for PDAF.