DPReview TV: In search of porcupines with the Fujifilm GFX 100S

I ordered one and I said this. Having money doesn't magically mean that you don't care at all how you spend it and that a company is being cheap.

An iPhone doesn't come with a dedicated charger, either. What's your point?

I am happy not to get a cheap charger with the camera which I throw away anyway. So I bought the Fujifilm dual charger with display. So I can also charge a future XT-4 oder X-H2 camera. Good that not so much electronic waste is produced.
Only brand hoppers need a charger included.

The company isn’t “being cheap’. They have a margin to protect and anything “thrown into the box” adds to the BOM cost and also likely increases the package size resulting in a higher shipping cost/fewer cameras/container. These costs must be accounted for with an increase in price or countered by removing something or reducing a cost elsewhere. The alternative is to not make adequate profit and, ultimately, go out of the camera business.

My comment wasn’t about “not caring about money” but rather an understanding that one is buying into a professional system with inherent costs.

Iphones are made by a crap company whose sole motive has always been eking out every last dime from the customer. It doesn't surprise me that you've rationalized it away. good for apple though!

And mightybo, fuji appreciates the good work you are doing to make them extra money by rationalizing bad behavior! Apparently in your world a fuji dual charger is quality but a fuji single charger would be low quality. Keep that rationalization coming!

Fuji has the option to provide a quality charger with a 6000 dollar camera. The only option isn't just a crappy one. They are just being cheap.

When I purchase a camera, I rightfully expect it to be fully functional and fully operational without having to purchase additional items.

The functionality of a camera is crippled without a dedicated charger because you can't freely operate the camera while in-body charging the battery via USB.

Manufacturing costs of a simple charger are probably in the realm of 5 USD and it is a nuisance having to separately search and order such an essential item.

Even if the camera can power up/operate while charging the battery via USB, this poses some significant constraints: you need to stay near a power outlet, so you cannit move around but need to stay close to one certain place.

Again, a basic charger would cost the company less than 5 Dollars to make and bundle (probably even less than that). That's less than 0.1% of the retail price of the camera. And I am not bashing Fuji here: When I bought my Sony A7ii, I was shocked that it shipped without a charger, too.

The point about being near an outlet makes sense, except nowadays all the cool kids have these great big USB power banks.

“ When I purchase a camera, I rightfully expect it to be fully functional and fully operational without having to purchase additional items.”

So you only buy fixed lens cameras? With internal memory? You probably use the factory strap too.

Your rightful expectations ring false and, in my experience, I’ve never purchased a camera for which I didn’t have to buy a handful of accessories to complete and improve the user experience. I am capable of calculating the “full and real” cost before I make a purchase decision and I seriously doubt that very many buyers of this camera were caught off guard by the lack of charger. If they need one, they’ll buy it.

[CONT]

[CONT}

$5 added to the BOM (Bill of Materials) means $50 added to the retail price in order to maintain margin. Remember that putting that item in the box will effect packaging and the shipping costs. It means additional warranty exposure (thus costs) too. All of this additional cost that must be passed along to the buyer if the company is going to survive and profit. “Make it up on volume” doesn’t apply in the world of US$5K cameras.

Again, I maintain that those in the market for this camera are largely unaffected. The noise is all coming from people throwing shade on the internet. Right up there with “Leica…Expensive…DERP DERP”.

Wonderful example of marketing brainwash: companies wanting buyers to bend over, and trolls arguing that people should embrace their own ankles too.
And teaching the proper form to do it... Wow.

Personally i haven’t used the brands dedicated charger in years, after a single trip I’ll plug my camera directly into the socket and USB charge, for longer trips I pack a cheap 2 slot charger I got from Amazon that also charges USB. I have a 6 port USB hub that allows me to charge 4 batteries on 2 dual slot chargers and my 2 cameras simultaneously with another 2 slots for other devices.

Honestly I just fail to understand why anyone would get that emotional about a missing battery charger, especially considering the state of the environment and the steps needed to reverse the damage being done. 90% of people won’t even care and will just USB charge, the other 10% can buy one themselves, meaning a 90% reduction in plastic and precious metals being produced needlessly.

@jaberg: lenses are optional choices since people have different needs for diffrent purposes: a portrait fotographer would like to have anything between 50mm and 135 mm focal length, the street photographer would be happy with a 35 mm, the bird and wildlife photographer would want a 400 mm lens and so on..
On the other hand, charging the batteries is not optional, it is mandatory. And having a dedicated charger helps a lot by allowing to recharge one battery while running the camera on an other battery.

I get your point of total costs/BOM being increased by adding items such as the charger. However, this would make sense only when purchasing a dedicated charger would be less expensive than the added costs of a bundled charger. And I highly doubt that this is the case.

@Barbu
yes, I see it just like you. At first, companies are being flattering, bundling lots of stuff, printed manuals, straps, chargers, sometimes even basic SD cards etc.
Once the consumers have been hooked up to a product line, the companies tend to be more and more rude - similar to quite a few long-term marriages: in the beginning a couple is super nice to each other, but after a while they don't care anymore.

@ottonis see my comment above and look at the bigger picture. Removing the charger and offering a choice to those who want it vastly reduces unnecessary production of harmful materials and unnecessary waste.

I have 3 Fujifilm branded chargers, and one Nikon that sit in a drawer in my house with zero use, the same with 5/6 phone chargers I’ve amassed over the years. If the same applies to every household in the U.K. alone we are talking millions and millions of devices that are unused.

The planet is on its way down the toilet and unless people and these large corporations start changing their behaviour, it will be flushed. Wake up and look outside your accusations and take a look at the actual benefits of taking these actions.

Another overlooked issue: USB sockets wear out. Smartphones charge all the time and I had recently a Iphone 6s fail after 5 months - sub PCB containing the USB and headphone socket had to be replaced.

Now a camera, and a rather expensive one, should last for many years. Having to use the USB socket all the time will cause a repair before the lifetime has worn out. Also, amateurs and professionals alike usually have more than one battery. Recharging the used ones while continuing to use the camera with another one is the normal way to go especially when travelling.

I never used the Sony power supply adapter to charge the battery within my camera. Instead I bought external chargers which usually can charge two batteries at the same time.

Not supplying such a charger with a 5k+ camera is cheap. Full stop.

Another one who doesn’t get it.... how can you not see that removing them reduces the amount of un-needed materials and devices, giving those that want them the option of purchasing and those that don’t are not stuck with something they don’t need.

This is like talking to 5yr olds who can’t grasp the basics of how to reduce waste.

@ Woz The Boss:
You have a point in reducing unnecessary waste for those who actually already possess a suitable battery charger. I totally agree that this is a valid argument, although it is crystal clear that the intention of the company is to increase their margin and not to save the planet.
That being said: A company that really cares, would offer special bundles, such as most companies offer camera bodies with as well as without a bundled kit lens. So, I would love to have that same option to get a charger with the camera if I am in need of one.

Woz: Wow, how arrogant can one get? I'd claim it is you not getting it.

You want to reduce waste? Fine, then buy a smartphone without charger. Strangely, this consumption parts that last at most 2-3 years are always supplied with a charger.

A Hasselblad camera for 5k+ is not exactly a consumption part and can be expected to live a LONG life, together with its charger.

Furthermore, e.g. for Sony batteries you can buy batteries together with a charging adapter for two batteries - which can be connected via USB into any 5V charger you already have lying around. So you already avoid wasting the power supply plug by reusing any existing one.

Your argumentation is laughable anyway. The e-waste generated by the camera itself outdoes any charger by orders of magnitudes.

What argument can you possibly conceive NOT to provide an inexpensive Hasselblad battery type specific charging adapter in this fashion with the camera? Almost nobody will have such a part already at home so zero waste.

Because you can just charge the camera directly connecting a USB cable with any charging brick you have in your home, how are you so unable to understand common sense and logic?

If 10000 people buy a camera and only 1000 of them require a branded charger, what is the point of including the other 9000 that wont be used, you remove it and then the 1000 people have the option of purchasing one, leaving the 9000 free to charge their camera with direct USB connection.

"Your argumentation is laughable anyway. The e-waste generated by the camera itself outdoes any charger by orders of magnitudes."

have you really just said that? is that honestly your all ending argument that the camera will produce waste so it doesnt matter that we add a bit more, THATS EXACTLY THE REASON THE WORLD IS IN THIS MESS YOU FOOL.

And in case you didnt notice, phone companies are now removing chargers from their phones, based on the logic that most people already own one.

On the last keynote event, Tim Cook said there are something like 900 million Apple charging bricks in circulation, let that sink into your brain for a minute before responding to me with more nonsense, 900 million.

Maintain margin, not increase it. There’s no evidence that Fujifilm’s margin is on the rise and I suspect they reap a lower margin than that I’d be comfortable operating my own business at. As other costs associated with producing and marketing the cameras rise the only way to maintain margin is some combination of raising prices, cutting costs elsewhere, or taking something out of the box.

I understand the view of those who would like to see a charger included though personally I’m in the “no waste” camp as I already have two chargers that can work for any of my Fuji batteries. My objection is to the belief that it should be “free” and the assertion that Fuji is “being cheap” by not including it. There’s no evidence that Fujifilm is “raking in the bucks” with their cameras, particularly not the medium format series. Yes they turn a profit. That’s how business works. No profit means the end of FujiFilm.

No matter. “Chargergate” doesn’t move the sales needle. It’s just more noise.

And you are stuck with your head so far in the sand that you cant see the bigger picture.

You are the type of person that doesn't recycle because 'im only one person, nothing i do makes a difference'

So far you accused me of being arrogant and living in a bubble, when in fact its your childish crying about this subject that alludes to both of those traits.

I work for a large telecoms company, one that has been told to reduce waste by all means, so our routers now have cables removed and plain packaging with no artwork, all to contribute to the environment.

Your blind focus on one company and your claim it wont make a difference is the whole issue, if EVERY company did the same as Hasselblaad, Apple, Fujifilm etc by using these marginal gains, the overall gain is huge. But i wouldnt expect someone with your selfish, single minded attitude to even begin to grasp the concept.

The fact remains, by removing them, they are reducing waste, full stop.

And just to add, NOT having a charger in the box is NOT preventing people from charging batteries, they just need to spend a few £/$/€ more on buying a charger should they need it.

You are claiming this is preventing photographers from doing their jobs and its utter nonsense.

Speaking of charger plugs wearing out.. the older USB3 Gen 1 connectors, the wider ones with two segments-one being compatible with USB B cords, are physically larger and more durable with a greater number of pins to transmit power. Of course, they're phasing those out in favor of smaller USB C, which to me doesn't look any more durable than the tiny little Micro HDMI port that video guys are right to complain about. This isn't a Fuji specific issue, they're all doing it.

@woz: bla bla bla.
I work for a global network supplier. Same story everywhere.
I own two cars, one is 30 years, the other 16 years. I do most travel with bike. I repair stuff all the time and not for wont of money.

You are so closed minded in your easily incitable hatred for dissidents you would make a good snowflake. But your intolerance smells more older age though.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. My first 5n had an external battery charger which I also used for my A6000. The latter had a power supply but no external charger. Same amount of electric waste, but useless. Upon selling the 5n I bought an external charger to be connected to a generic 5V supply. Same story with the A6600. A battery adapter has minimal electronics ergo minimal waste, but allows you to charge outside of the camera. If you had half of your aggressions in knowhow, the world would be a better place.

The simple fact is, the companies are now giving people a choice to purchase the charger themselves, and that is a good thing for the environment.

I will repeat if 10000 people buy an item and only 1000 are interested in the additional charger then thats 9000 not needed items that are saved from production, its literally primary school mathematics, any child above the age of 6 can grasp this.

Anyone buying a £6000 camera then complaining about a £100 charger has greater issues than not getting a charger with their camera.

Its clear you will never see this so the conversation is over.

Do they at least provide the cord? Would that not be too much to ask? It would seem they'd want to provide a good quality cord so at least their camera didn't get burned up by a manky gas station charger cord.

GFX is able to deliver magnificent results due to the bigger sensor and the excellent lens formulas. Unfortunately the built quality comes closer to an 'X-series system on steroids' than what I've seen in top pro-ILC ranges. My GFX had a separate adaptor but a flimsy one. I was less happy with frequent lens issues I experienced and the not very reliable connection between the handgrip and body, frequently resulting in missed shots. Controlling the slow AF remains gamble and settings like Fujifilm's preference to combine the multi/area exposure settings with the slow eye/face detection are odd and often wrong too. The GFX100s may be better/faster but the weight of glass that has to move back and forth is enormous with the GF-lenses. Unless Fuji is able to do some magic this is after all a 'MF system on a budget', suggesting this is a 100% full-frame replacement doesn't feel right to me. Studio and landscape yes, but I would never like to shoot a wedding with the GFX as a sole companion.

The gap between the medium format and FF will always be there, just like the gap between FF and APS-C. by the time FF come out with the 100MP, you think Fuji will won't have a even higher resolution sensor? and it image quality is not just the resolution.

Also as time goes by Fuji can improve the AF system for more fps.

I can see a future GFX body getting to 7-8 fps. Then after that getting to 10 fps.

You really have to credit Fuji? That is so wrong I had a good chuckle reading it. Whom you really have to credit is the sensor manufacturing plant where they have made it possible to make these huge semiconductors at affordable prices. If Fuji had something to do with that great for them.

@bloodreyna: Why is it an either/or? Sure the company that makes this sensor does a terrific job...I believe it's Sony.

But that doesn't produce a final product. A camera is more than just the sensor sitting on a shelf. Fuji had the vision, and then takes the sensor and puts it into this package. That deserves merit as well; it's not trivial.

There is genius in executing and getting a product to the market. Fuji has done that. They had the vision; they put all the pieces together; they design some components and source others, like all companies. They deserve enormous credit.

So it's both. The sensor manufacturer deserves credit but so does Fuji. And ultimately without Fuji this camera does not exist.

Yes, everyone think it is Sony. But if you look at the output, it look exactly liek the R5... so either Sony is make Canon sensor, or it is Cannor picturs all A-long.

"Whom you really have to credit is the sensor manufacturing plant where they have made it possible to make these huge semiconductors at affordable prices."

Some of that is related to production volume, and producing any sensor in (relatively) high volume requires a product to put that sensor into. So Fujifilm deserves credit for developing a product that attracts enough customers to keep the price down.

@blood. Everyone knows that when you buy a GFX100S they just hand you a cardboard box with a sensor.

Did you chuckle - well since ther is one 100mp MF cameras at this price point I'll give due credit to fujifilm.

Diffraction.

@SpeedyNeo: > “A smaller aperture has nothing to do with megapixel count.”

Well, as Revenant and I say: it has everything to do with it!

Still, it seems that I was distracted at the moment, so my claim SEEMS WRONG! At ƒ/16 with 3.76μm sensels, the diffraction should NOT affect the resolution so much as a I said above! My apologies!

(IF I did not make another error!) diffraction would prohibit using the ACTUAL resolution of this sensor — but only a bit. Now my impression is “close to about α7Riv performance” — but obviously I cannot trust my judgement now! (Need to have my sleep…)

I didn't make the actual calculation, so can't say how big the impact is in this particular example. But we're still right about diffraction being a thing that may lower actual resolution, and therefore needs to be considered.

DR and other attributes won’t change.
You’ll still end up with a better image all else being equal.
So maybe the point is even at f16 your images will be better than with FF.

@bloodreyna: > “… on a true medium format sensor …”

No, the ƒ-number has nothing to do with the format. It gives the limit on the details present in the image formed by the lens.

Hence it is only the sensor’s pitch what is important. This generation of Sony’s sensors has the pitch of 3.76μm. This means that it is “fully used” if the the image formed by a lens has spacial frequencies 1/(2·3.76) cycles/μm present. (This ignores the Bayer filter. AFAIK, today’s demosaicers has “efficiency” of about ≥80% in spacial frequency…)

With a ƒ/N lens and green light (0.55μm wavelength) the smallest details preserved by diffraction have spacial frequencies 0.55N of μm/cycle. So N<2·3.76/0.55 would be OK.

So a lens without aberrations would start to fully use the sensor’s capabilies at about ƒ/11. (This needs to be corrected by the efficiency of the demosaicer.)

@probert500: Sigh!

See my first reply to bloodreyna. The format has NOTHING to do with this restriction.

If ƒ/8–ƒ/11 is fine with α7rIV, then ƒ/8–ƒ/11 is going to be fine with GFX 100, since they have the SAME sensel size. Nothing more can be said (like what happens with ƒ/16!). There is no “hidden conversion” of ƒ-Numbers between these situations.

Dan_168:

You've shot many times with a camera that's barely released?

Mujana sorry to hear that, dont know your circumstances, I've top gear because it's more important to me than moving house, newer cars, eating out, holidays, more kids, smoking drinking etc... its about priorities if you've a reasonable income. I would warn anyone about GFX lenses though, they are so nice you end up spending more on them than you did on the camera

I cancelled my pre-order. I just realized I didn't need it. I'm so glad I read these replies!

@bigsensorisbest. I do have a reasonable income and I agree it’s all about priorities. Don’t care about a (new) house/ car, or kids (don’t have kids and house and car are good as they are). I think I would be satisfied with only 2 Fuji lenses (and my Sony lenses aren’t cheap either). I do have a wife though😉.
So, thinking.

Mujana The 45-100 does a lot and I find the 100-200 incredibly sharp but others have to buy primes...

@Bigsensorisbest smoking and drinking ?- That, my friend, is a step too far!

@HowaboutRAW, some popular site like B and H may still be " back order", but 3 of my friends already have the GFX100s and I have 2 other friends been shooting the original GFX100 for a while, so yes, I have a lot of opportunities to play with those during all those photo trips and have tons of image from both cameras on my harddrive.

@Dan_168. I see you' re using the A7RIV at the moment...and planning to change to the Fuji GFX100s. I always like to hear/read personal experiences. What are yours when comparing these two cameras?

@mujana, my main system is D850, the 7R IV is my hiking and backpacking camera because it's smaller than the 850 with grip, and I love those small Voigtlander and Loxia primes so that combo makes it a perfect hiking companion. After playing with those Fuji and i really want one, the DR , the color, is simply fantastic, even the 23-64 zoom lens is so good and pretty cheap, especially with the $500 rebate, it's now cheaper than a lot of FF lenses I have, I also played with the 23 F4 for milky way but 's way too slow, my Sigma 14 1.8 on Nikon 850 really out perform the Fuji by a pretty big margin, so far Milky Way and starry night sky night photo 's been the only area I saw my Nikon ( and even 7RIV ) out perform the MF Fuji, I do quite a bit of those, I don't use any of those above mentioned cameras for sport so AF performance is not even part of the equation, I shoot manual focus 99% of the time when using those, i am in no hurry at all, planning to get the Fuji by end of 2021.

sirkhann:

But what if you purchased the GFX-100 with the intention of making money doing immediate photography jobs, and indeed those jobs paid for at least the $10,000 body, and perhaps some new lenses?

Very few people purchase $10,000 camera bodies (all of which, in April 2021, are still medium format) without having paying photography jobs lined up.

Also, under the principle of not purchasing the first model of a line, and MORE importantly, because the first GFX-100 had an obvious flaw in not having a real vertical grip though the body was styled like a D5-EM1X-1DXIII, many people who'd considered+handled that first GFX-100 probably didn't purchase it.

There's much to recommend the GFX-100, especially the autofocus and excellent high resolution sensor, but it has significant problems.

@Sirkhann: Hang on, aren't you Canon guys supposed to be trolling the Nikon and Sony shooters?

Frankly, I'm honoured!

Isn't it common sense that the price of electronic products would get lower after it has been released for a while? Replace Fuji in your comment with Nikon/Sony/Canon and nothing would change. I don't know why you have to particularly call Fuji out for price drop after launch.

Also, don't try to feel for others when you are not one of them. I hear no GFX shooters who buy their camera at launch price feel they are unfortunate or like a fool, non of them.

This is why Nikon D850 owners to this day are satisfied as hell....4 years later IQ is on par with any FF camera, AF still amazing, built like a tank

Bought my GFX-50s $1k more than what it's selling today and I am fine with it. I have no complaints. Perhaps you should wait for another 10 years to buy a camera with ibis and 8k for under $2k.

So did Hasselblad with its X1D and the markii

Most consumer electronics items update relatively frequently. Buy any smartphone and there will be an updated replacement within a year. Ditto with any computer.

Car makers come out with new models every year...it's a ritual. So buy a new car and it will be replaced within a year.

If a product can be improved, a company will do so. Technology advances very rapidly, and so any product with technology inside is a candidate for rapid updating.

When you buy any tech product, do so because you need or want it, not because you don't expect it there to be a newer model sometime soon.

I personally would prefer to purchase products from a company that is always iterating and innovating. Why would one get upset if a new product is released if they am happy with the one I purchased? It is a foreign way at looking at things to most photographers who are more concerned with getting a tool to enable their craft instead of to keep up with the Joneses.

There is a reason Fujifilm has moved into third place in the market.

I parted with my last Canon camera in 2010 and I'm shooting with Fujifilm since circa 2013 (X-E1).

Innovation is a good thing, but I don't believe it's fair to launch a top of the line product at $9999, and soon after that, release a better product at way lower price, which fixes some of the mistakes the engineering team made, rushing the product to the market. Plus - most of the products that I have listed, never reached their potential and marketing claims. I had issues with X-H1 and X-T100, and GFX 100 seems to be lagging behind the S.

Plus - cutting corners and pushing products to the market that require a new release every year, in my eyes demonstrate lack of respect to customers, and the environment.

So, yeah, as I said - Fujifilm is constantly improving, but at your expense. And every time I speak with photographers, who make a living with that, almost everyone have tried the X system for serious stuff like weddings, and it didn't work out for them.

I've the GFX100 and don't feel like a fool, it's incredible, if you stick the really right stuff grip in the bottom its got a great grip to hold and its a better studio camera than the 100s. I still want full frame to carry outside and GFX for anything planned or studio based

@sirkhann The GFX 100 was released two years ago, so it does not seem unreasonable that the GFX 100S has desirable new features. There are still advantages to the 100, such as the vertical grip and the viewfinder, that will justify the price to some people.

Again, if a camera company is not releasing significantly improved cameras every couple of years I would be concerned about them (eg. Nikon). This does not come at the “customer’s expense” as you put it unless you have put yourself in a very particular mindset, which I do not believe is a healthy one for a consumer.

I guess by this logic I should not have bought my Canon 10D in Spring of 2003 for $1,500. If I had waited I could buy it today for probably $50.

@HowaboutRAW You are right about the GFX 100 vertical grip - it cannot hold a candle to similar bodies from other vendors.

Hard disagree about the Z6/Z7 though. I used to own a Z7 but it disappointed in pretty much every conceivable way except for the quality of the few lenses available. Ergonomics are a very personal preference but in my opinion the Z cameras are no better than recent Sony bodies (both being worse than anything from Panasonic/Leica FF) and the autofocus for stills shooting was worst-in-class when I owned it (perhaps the Z6II/Z7II have improved here though). Being with Nikon mirrorless was like being in a toxic relationship where you do not truly realize how bad things actually were until you break away.

Are you using Windows 95?

Are you using Windows 3.1?

Well, if you can afford a $6000 body + another maybe $10K lenses, I think you can easily afford a new computer, by the way, even my lowly Mac Mini with M1 chip handles those 100MP lossless Fuji RAW just fine. no screaming, not even getting hot,

I find 32gb ram can open any file easily...

Man if 60mb files brings your computer to it's knees, you need to upgrade, or stop using mobile laptop cpus and get a Desktop to processes images on. If you are not on the road there is no reason to be handicapping yourself with mobile CPUs that sacrifice performance for low TDPs.

For home/studio use get a current gen 8-12 core cpu system with at least 32gb of 3200mhz or faster ram, the fastest 1TB NVME drive you can afford for the OS, Lr/C1/PS install, catalogs, and previews, and a mid range GPU and you wont' worry about processing big files ever again. Yes that will be expensive. But lets keep some perspective. We are talking about a 6K body and at least 5-6K in lenses to get started if you're buying into a GFX 100S system. A good computer to process the files on is like the price of one GF lens and given how much it will speed up your workflow for every camera you use and even for video if you do that, easily worth double what you will pay for it.

My old 11" macbook air can handle layered 60mb files - was doing 2 gig pano stitching.

Motion artifacts are a problem with any stacked shot effort. This was debated quite recently on a Panasonic lens review thread.

Although I would agree that Panasonic's multi shot is easier to use because the camera does it, I would also contend that 400 megapixels is still.. 400 megapixels and if you're preserving art, that's what matters.