Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF

...more lovers of photography! - who can disagree with this.

Making money is nothing without love.

I raise a glass, "amour!"

?

The xt2 is only $1599. How can you not afford that and some of their lenses?

Work harder and make more money. Best of luck.

I'm glad that you are fully satisfied, and I'm sure that many are.

My point was only to underline that the flaws stated by DPR are not minor ones. And 85% is a very high score, suggesting that the camera is brillant for most people, thus including those using AF, which would need AF-C, would like to draw benefits from faster lenses or at least have a massive counterpart in terms of IQ.

In my understanding a camera with a 75% score can be a great camera for particular use cases ; it not shining everywhere.

you can sync at 1/800 with a hassy lens via an adapter

It does not need to. not until fuji makes an 80Mp MF sensor. as you can see from the current test, and even by the reviewers admission, the resolving power of 5dsr and Fuji are very similar. Again, as I mentioned in another post, the 1 stop low light advantage and shallow dof advantage of the larger sensor is more than negated by availability of much faster lenses for the canon system. Until Fuji makes zooms faster than f4 or primes faster than f2, the canon system will have advantages in low light. Not to mention, the canon will do a lot of things that fuji cant.
Not saying medium format systems have no merit. Also not saying there will be no difference in color depth etc. But right now, as a system, the Fuji will be struggling to match the canon in many situations (AF, fps, hand held low light, overall versatility) and would be Marginally if at all better in resolution and color depth.

kevindar:

"It does not need to. not until fuji makes an 80Mp MF sensor. as you can see from the current test,"

Stop assuming I've not tried both cameras. I have. The better results from the Fuji GFX-50S are east to see.

What would help with the Canon 5DSR is optically better lenses, so that's the Zeiss Otus line, or Milvus, and the better SigmaART lenses. Canon L lenses just aren't there yet, well unless one massively stops them down. (No, I've not tried the newest, bestest, Canon L 35mm f/1.4 lens.) But even with the optically better lenses, the Canon still has higher pixel density and that impedes image quality.

Right, you are correct, the 5DSR has faster lens options.

The question 'is it as good as a Nikon D810', needs qualifying with what you need a camera for, wether you are heavily invested in Nikon FF, etc, otherwise the question is unanswerable.

You'd have to search out a select few lenses for the Nikon to match the GF lenses, you'd probably need to go to Zeiss manual focus.

Also there's no tilt EVF with the Nikon, yes you add on a Nikon right-angle adaptor, but it's not the same experience as the great GFX tilt EVF.

In good light the GFX clearly resolves more detail.

Both are very good cameras. If I had a D810 with select top glass and was happy with it, I wouldn't buy a GFX to replace it.

I didn't have a FF system so could take a run at either FF or MF (I have used the D810 and Canon 5D's). I choose MF, and in particular the very good glass, versatility (EVF etc) and speed of the Fuji.

PAntunes:

Things to shoot with this GFX-50S: People, not people running around, and not say swing dancing, then the places, interesting objects on the street. Trees, waves, waterfalls. The sky, the moon, the stars. Much of the visible world. And oh the irony, that yes you can use the Fuji to shoot dance, as long as you're not trying to follow the dancers.

"resolution": Did you really just go down the equal MP counts mean equal image quality line of thought? Anyhow, the Canon 5DSR has the same pixel count as the Fuji GFX-50S.

Have you tried the Sony A7RII, Canon 5DSR, Nikon D810, and Pentax 645Z? I have.

And of the Canon, Nikon, and Sony, I prefer the Nikon with the "lowly" pixel count of 36MP. But think the Pentax 645Z a fine camera, and I see plenty of reasons people would buy that Pentax MF system. Just like I see plenty reasons one would by the Fuji GFXS.

A 6000$ camera for "interesting objects on the street"?

That's where I feel the camera fails... Doesn't have the specs to use the sensor. Not many people can pay that for a camera that really doesn't work in so many situations. It may have a little better image quality than a 5DS or a A7RII, but then fails to have the capability of creating the images in the first place.

PAntunes:

You didn't bring up price. But now that you have: Okay, the A7RII is 3000usd, why spend that much when you can purchase the excellent Panasonic LX10 for 700usd? Or what about the very good even cheaper Canon G16?

You changed the conditions of what you consider a "fail". That itself is a failure.

If you'd been honest with yourself, you could have commented: "More than I'd spend for what it does." And that would be fine.

"but then fails to have the capability of creating the images in the first place." No, it doesn't. It fails to have every shooting capacity you want. There's a difference. Also again, neither the Canon nor the Sony retails for say 900usd.

Why consider the Hasselblad X1D, or any other Hasselblad using this sensor?
Why consider a Phase body using this sensor?

We get it. It's not for you. The Pentax K70 is an excellent 24MP camera, it shoots 14 bit raws. And several Pentax APSC fixed focal length lenses are optically excellent.

PAntunes:

"So you think a G16 has a similar quality to an A7RII", I said no such thing. Don't pretend I did. At at lower ISOs the G16 has excellent image quality.

You tried to distract with a new price qualification.

Again, the Fuji GFX-50S is not for you, we get it. That you'd pick a pricey Canon or Sony body is certainly your prerogative. But stop making out that there's no good reason to pick a high quality medium format digital body like this Fuji or say the Pentax 645Z.

Howaboutraw, the problem with your analogy and argument, and I am sure you are well aware of it, is the laws of diminishing returns. Here you have 100% crops of 5dsr vs the Fuji showing very little difference. I assure you no one, at any ISO at 100% crop will mistake the image from lx10 or g16, for one from a7rII.additionally, a7rII does about everything better than those cameras including video and AF. You can make a better analogy comparing a crop to a full frame. At least there, you can you are talking about roughly the same change in sensor size. the difference of course there is that the Low light advantages and shallow dof advantage does not translate here, b/c of lenses. so you are left with DR, resolving power and color. And there is just not much difference there.

PAntunes,

Didn't realize that you couldn't see the obvious reasons in the results.

You'd have to be blind not to.

kevindar:

It's simple, Fuji GFX lenses are optically better than those Canon L lenses available for the 5DSR. So you'll have to use Zeiss Otus lenses to get to, surpass the Fuji, but you're still stuck with smaller pixel problems.

It's not "what other Medium Format Cameras have they reviewed" (Pentax 645 series); it's that you can get the same or better results with faster lenses on an A7Rii and for a whole lot less money and better "ecosystem" etc.

It seems dpr missed quite a few obvious negatives.

Also, dpr's inconsistency is kind of frustrating - they complain about a certain aspect in camera "a" but, said aspect isn't even mentioned in camera "b" even though it's worse in "b"...

Finally, it's good to know Fuji color science has nothing to do with the magical x-trans sensor - it's a gimmick.

Mared,

Yeah that's how DPR scoring works. Also the Pentax 645Z is an SLR, not a mirrorless camera. Please don't change what I wrote to suit your end, it's really really tiresome.

This Fuji is a better higher ISO body than the A7RII. Also the better/bigger lenses and 16 bit raws show.

DPR has a long history of rating cameras relative to their market segment. Considering this camera is in a market segment of two cameras, and is arguably the better value, it gets the gold.

First of all, my opinion piece quite clearly outlined you should buy FF if you want 90% of the benefits MF currently promises, while perhaps 1000% benefits in aspects other than image quality.

We kept the same ethos in our review, but when we scored and evaluated its medal, we did think of it more as in its own MF category, which we're literally in the process of making (a new scoring category).

Compared to its MF peers, it pulls ahead enough for a Gold on the axes of value and usability. If you need that absolute res, this is your ticket. With the flash speed sync caveat.

@HowaboutRAW: 16-bit Raws? The Fujifilm doesn't do 16-bit Raw, while the Hasselblad shows little, if any benefit to it (Bill Claff shows a 0.08EV benefit, but our actual real-world DR test in the studio shows the X1D to fall slightly behind the Fuji & the Nikon D810, possibly b/c its blue channel is too selective).

Actually, AF was a deciding factor. It's just that the competition is so much worse in this department.

But yes, we're not entirely stupid. We don't evaluate MF cameras on AF-C performance, for example, since literally none of them can perform in this arena, yet. But it's something you should consider if considering FF vs. MF, given the very small IQ benefits to 44x33 MF we've shown here in this review and in my opinion piece (if it matters to you).

We try to think like the photographer; hopefully we largely succeed, sometimes we fail. It helps when our audience helps us understand how we fail. With this camera, I'm actually a little worried we under-emphasized the importance of higher flash sync speeds, so we're curiously looking at reader feedback as to the importance of this aspect of the camera (where the Hasselblad X1D exceeds the performance of the GFX, of course, thanks to its leaf shutter).

Howaboutraw I see you are still claiming to own all these cameras and lenses and yet won't post anything to prove you do.

@robin - Please don't take Howaboutraw seriously. He will claim to own and use almost every camera but if you ask him for Any shred of proof he will have none. 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! Believe him at your own risk. Since he hasn't given me any sort of proof I am treating everything he says as a lie.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was some sort of intelligent computer bot considering the amount of time he has on his hands to post :)

Perhaps the 100mm L macro and take 2 steps back.

Maybe you can ask a close friend to read the review and explain to you in simple terms before posting your views here?

The speedy AF crowd isn't this camera's (or any similar camera's) target market.

Medium format cameras have never been as fast as 35mm cameras, particularly high end ones. It seems that those getting upset by this fact don't understand the market.

This camera, like many pro cameras before it, is not aimed at the sports / journalist market and doesn't claim to be. People who buy professional tools buy the right tool for the job. High end cameras are no different from any other serious professional equipment. If you need speed you invest in cameras that excel in that area.

Won't focus? I don't think you're the intended market for this serious piece of equipment.

I think that what Reilly mean't is that the camera won't focus in some frequent circumstance: dimmed light... To miss a potentially very good and special photo because of a sluggish AF can be very frustrating... And there is a camera that hasn't this issue: the Pentax 645z... The 645z focuses in almost darkness (-3 EV). And such a camera can always be set in Live View if you prefer to focus using on-sensor (sluggish but sometimes more accurate) contrast detect...

IdM:

Doesn't the Pentax 645Z lose any focusing advantage if you switch to contrast detect.

It was foolish of the OP to say the camera won't focus; it focuses quite well in fact.

The Pentax 645Z put in Live View (contrast detect) should focus as well as the GFX 50S... The same information comes out from the sensor and the processing should be similar...

@HowaboutRaw Sure, there is a huge difference between CDAF and PDAF with the 645Z. With PDAF you can focus precisely (and quickly) on objets you can barely see. As I mentionned earlier, it focuses significantly better in low light than my D800E.

One possible issue with the 645Z and it's lenses are the weight, and the price of some of the new lenses. But these more expensive lenses (the 90mm f2.8 as well as the 28-45mm zoom) have optical stabilization. The 90mm is razor sharp even wide open...

Hilarious when people start with a sarcastic comment....showing they a) Didn't understand the article, and b) Missed the point of what MF is about. What next....complaining that the frame rate on a 4x5 camera isn't good for a soccer match?

@The Davinator Frame rate is one thing, being able to focus is another... Why should MF cameras be bad at focusing?

IdM,

And this Fuji focuses quite well.

The Fuji focusses quite well. It is about using the right tool for the job.

Is "Quite well" enough? The only advantages of the Fuji vs. the Pentax 645z are the weight and size... but you loose:
1. phase detect AF that works in almost darkness
2. The huge optical viewfinder
3. A much larger choice of lenses (Fuji will have only 3 lenses, the other three that were promised seem to have been discontinued)
4. The possibility to have in the future a larger sensor. The Pentax 645 system (all lenses except one) is compatible with the larger 100MP sensor produced by Sony.

IdM:

Yes, get this through your head: "Quite well" means exactly that, and that capacity certainly includes many varieties of "well enough".

This Fuji system has optically better lenses than the Pentax 645 system. The Fuji zoom is the weakest, and it's still optically better than what Pentax offers for its MF bodies.

Right the 645Z has a good optical VF, the Fuji has a just excellent EVF. Both have their strengths, and weaknesses.

On what information are basing the assertion that these Fuji lenses wouldn't work with the bigger 100MP sensor used for example in the Phase XF100?

Do you have data on the image circle of these Fuji GFX lenses? For that matter, how are you sure the image circle of the Pentax 645 system lenses covers that sensor?

I am sure that all the Pentax lenses named "D FA 645" of "FA 645" cover the larger frame of Sony's 100MP sensor, as they cover the 6cm x 4.5cm film area. The "F" stands for "Full Frame MF". Therefore the system is named 645. The only lens that wouldn't cover the larger sensor is the DA 645 28-45mm zoom...

Fuji's system, being mirrorless and with a shorter flange distance, may offer more flexibility to design wide angle ones. The Pentax 645 lenses are top optical designs, especially the newer "D" (for digital) serie. And as most lenses cover the larger film area, you have less issues with corner softness and vignetting.

We were addressing the commonly heard misconception that you get more subject isolation with MF than FF. This is simply not true; currently, FF with fast lenses gives you the highest degree of subject isolation and background blur.

So we were pointing out there won't be any DOF benefits, and maybe even some deficits.

Furthermore, if low light image quality (noise in Raw) is parity between the GFX and the a7R II for the same focal plane exposure (shutter speed and aperture), you can get better low light noise performance on some FF cameras using faster lenses (for equivalent depth of field). This will change, of course, when MF sensor tech catches up.

Both these points point to the fact that you don't get DOF and low light noise benefits commensurate with the increase in sensor size.

As for resolution - yes this is exactly what we point out as the major (potential) advantage. But our real-world IQ tests (portrait + cityscape) show remarkably small benefit.

Misconception?!

It certainly doesn't sound like it the way you are putting it. It doesn't sound for starters like a like-for-like comparison. So are you saying that an FF with a f2.8 lens will give you a DOF advantage in terms of isolation than an MF with a f2.8?

So then, if I were to mount a f1.8 lens on a MF are you saying that a FF with a F1.8 would have an advantage?

Wow, physics re-written.

Well that's the digital age. Established physics and photographic knowledge forgotten or re-written in apples to pears comparisons.

All those custom Hassy f0.7 lenses for the moon landings, f2(s) and Mamiya s80mm f1.9 and whatnot, just rubbished for what they are known and special for, since people just decided that apparently I could just get the same thing from FF or 35mm with a lens of the same speed.

The only other analogy I can come up to that statement right now is "A doped Ben Johnson is better than a Ben Johnson" :D

And I wonder sometimes why don't I log on here anymore!

Rishi, it looks a bit harsh to list the "misconception" as the first "cons" of the system. Isn't it?

My point, which stands, is that no matter what people that don't use the system think (the misconception) - the people that use MF know this, and there were never too fast lenses in MF.

Also, as i said... you are theoretically 100% correct, but in real life you just don't shoot that 85mm at 1.4 all the time. Most of the times it's at 2.8-5.6 because you need that whole head to be in focus. :)