Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Dan Wells on April 22, 2021, 11:18:14 pm
-
Hello everyone
I'm going to be talking with Fujifilm tomorrow (and I'll read the forum before I do), and the camera should be in my hands for several weeks starting in early May. What do people want to know about it?
I had the GFX 100 in for review when it first came out, and it was an ergonomic nightmare that produced amazing images. The 100S promises to be only modestly larger than most FF mirrorless bodies, and no larger than something like a D850 - probably much less of an ergonomic nightmare? The interface also looks much better than the original GFX 100.
I'm hoping to have the 50mm (the most compact lens of all), and another of the more compact lenses...
I'd love to know if there are specific things folks would like me to look for...
Dan
-
Yes, the logic of the UI of the GFX100s is basically identical to that of a Nikon Z7 (except for the lens release button location that I find much more practical on the Nikon). Much better than that of the GFX100.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The main question is whether the extra lens / body bulk and weight bring enough benefits in terms of picture quality over a full frame mirrorless system. Or, more precisely, at what size of print do the benefits become apparent?
-
The main question is whether the extra lens / body bulk and weight bring enough benefits in terms of picture quality over a full frame mirrorless system. Or, more precisely, at what size of print do the benefits become apparent?
That’s a fair question that is also applicable to true MF backs in fact.
Overall my feeling is that the actual image quality gap doesn’t compensate for all the downsides for those looking for an all rounder.
It’s a niche product that will only be meaningful for a pretty narrow range of applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The main question is whether the extra lens / body bulk and weight bring enough benefits in terms of picture quality over a full frame mirrorless system. Or, more precisely, at what size of print do the benefits become apparent?
That is not so difficult. It is the same sensor only larger than that of the Sony 7R-IV
If you start with a pixel perfect lens that all systems have;
It can be printed a factor 1.22 wider with the same quality as the Sony 7R-IV
if you like 200dpi that will be :
1.48M wide and 1,11m high for the Fuji or 1,22 meter wide and 0,81m high for the Sony.
I expect the reason for the 'low' price of the Fuji 102Mp is that Fuji knows there are 80MP FF camera's around the corner, so they want people to buy into the system now.
-
That’s a fair question that is also applicable to true MF backs in fact.
Overall my feeling is that the actual image quality gap doesn’t compensate for all the downsides for those looking for an all rounder.
It’s a niche product that will only be meaningful for a pretty narrow range of applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have sold Fuji GFX 100S systems to landscape photographers, studio product photographers, portrait photographers, and even a wedding photographer.
Thank goodness for niches.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
How's the rear display/EVF for zooming in and checking critical focus?
-
How's the rear display/EVF for zooming in and checking critical focus?
My main issue is that I need to save a full-sized JPG in order to zoom in completely. Otherwise, the resolutions of the rear LCD and EVF work fine.
-
Could you ask them about the differences in weather sealing between the two bodies ? The S seems to be more suited for taking on longer treks but those also come with more extreme interactions with weather, longer exposure to moisture, etc. I have trekked in various remote mountain regions with my 645z (which did fine) but given that pentax seems to have given up I’m looking for a new system.
-
I'd be interested in a view of whether the camera is really hand-holdable take-anywhere or is actually a tripod and studio camera in disguise. And if it is take-anywhere, what's the view of the build quality and weather sealing? Practicality and flash and accessories would also be helpful. Thanks.
-
Just read the first impression of Diglloyd on the F100s. The EVF is not so nice, and certainly not compared to the new landmark EVF built in the Sony Alpha1.
That made me realize that one of the nice things of medium format has always been the excellent large optical viewfinder.
With mirrorless bodies the natural correlation between sensor format and EVF-quality is lost.
Good news for the small format sensors that can have a EVF as good as a medium format camera, that was not possible before.
I think the quality of the EVF is very important, practically, but also in liking a camera; although it says nothing about the image quality.
-
Although perhaps a bit off topic, two or three T/S lenses would make the system very useable for architectural photographers who require high res prints. A 21mm, 30mm and maybe a 45mm would do the trick.
-
I have sold Fuji GFX 100S systems to landscape photographers, studio product photographers, portrait photographers, and even a wedding photographer.
Thank goodness for niches.
The GFX100s has appealing specs and I am not surprised that photographers from various disciplines are attracted.
Whether the reality of the performance matches the hype for these various categories is IMHO a different topic.
For portrait I personally prefer the eye AF of my Z7II if I am after a limited DoF look or the great viewfinder, integrated Profoto controller and ease of focus of my P1 XF in the studio if I use f5.6/f8. But it's true that the skin tones of the Fuji are nice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'll CERTAINLY ask the weather sealing question... Making 100 MP medium format that mobile isn't meaningful if it won't survive the rigors of serious outdoor use.
Tilt/shift lenses are also very important for close to the car landscape on a heavy tripod. I wouldn't carry the Mighty Robus, my 7 lb monster tripod (I once sat on the thing without damage) backpacking for obvious reasons, but working at most a mile or two from a vehicle, I probably WOULD have it, and t/s lenses would add another degree of large-format flexibility. If Fujifilm goes that way, they'd be the first company to introduce a dedicated mirrorless t/s lens (although both Canon and Nikon SLR lenses are compatible with adapters).
We'll see how much the very high resolution matters - I intend to compare prints against the Z7 and A7r IV (both of which are in my permanent collection), both at large sizes and using my Canon PRO-2000's double-resolution "600 dpi" mode (I'm not sure if it's a true 600 dpi or some trick that takes 600 dpi input and produces somewhat higher resolution output). When I've used the double-resolution mode in other tests, it hasn't made a huge difference (other than on some very old printers where it was directly connected to other quality features) - but this camera is 600 dpi NATIVE at 16x20"! Will it make a medium-size print that has unusual micro-detail?
My suspicion going in is that, if there's an effect, it'll be right on the edge of vision - the way you can't quite define WHY a print from 8x10" film looks different, but it does. I've had a chance to stand very close to a large original print of Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter Storm (which I'm almost sure is an 8x10" negative), and there's something about it that even a very good mechanical reproduction (a fancy art poster produced from a drum scan of an original print) of the same image doesn't capture. I suspect it's partially in the dynamic range of the silver gelatin print, but also partially in some micro-detail that the huge piece of film captured that even the very fine line screen on the press couldn't reproduce. I'm not sure if inkjet printing can capture that micro-detail beyond 300 dpi, but this is the camera to bring it out if it's there...
The full-size JPEG thing seems like it's probably a bug, but it's unfortunately a common one - many cameras do that to you (and shooting raw+ jpeg on high-res bodies is not a nice thing to do to your memory cards - but remember that this thing is operating in a range where, only a few years ago, you got TWO shots per film holder!)...
What's an all-rounder, anyway? This is pretty clearly the worst commonly available camera in the world for sports, and not much better for wildlife. It just may be the best for landscape, architecture and some other things... I don't think there's any question that a Z7/ A7r IV/EOS-R5 is more versatile (and darned good at the things the Fujifilm excels at). The question is whether the extra quality in certain applications is worth the inconvenience (unless someone ONLY works in a few disciplines, this won't be an only camera, but one of a couple of systems in a photographer's bag).
DPReview (usual caveats) had one especially interesting finding in their review... The 100S has about a 2/3 stop DR advantage over the usual Sony-sensored FF suspects at ISO 100 (makes a lot of sense - it has about 1 2/3 times the sensor area). The other camera that has about a 2/3 stop DR advantage over the usual is one of the low-ISO capable Nikons (at ISO 64). Again, this makes sense mathematically - but it's an interesting way to think about it. This is perhaps a lot like a Z7 at its lowest ISO, but with a lot of extra resolution.
In my conversation with Fujifilm's technical expert on the GFX, two very interesting questions/observations came up. One is that, in Fujifilm's opinion (and I'll certainly test this, but it's an interesting benchmark of what to look for), the 100 MP sensor is about as big a jump over high-res FF as high-res FF is over really good APS-C (all else being equal). Mathematically, that makes sense. It's about 1 2/3x the sensor area, and a little over twice the resolution (compared to a Z7 or EOS-R5, the A7r IV is somewhat higher from a resolution standpoint). The jump from an X-T4 to a Z7 is a little more than twice the sensor area and about 1.8x the resolution, so it's the same order of magnitude.
The second question, to which none of us knew the answer, is how inkjet dot gain affects the prints at really high resolution? This may have a lot to do with how well 600 dpi mode works. I know where I can find a LightJet (which has no dot gain), and that'll certainly be part of the test... Not sure the LightJet can keep up with modern 12-color inkjet in terms of color and dynamic range, but the "no dot gain" element is interesting. This may reveal differences among inkjet print heads that we haven't had the resolution to see before, too.
I'll forward the weather sealing and tilt/shift questions to Fujifilm today - I should have the camera in hand the end of next week!
Dan
-
The main question is whether the extra lens / body bulk and weight bring enough benefits in terms of picture quality over a full frame mirrorless system.
Valid point for many people. Weight/size of 100S body is not so different, but of course the lenses go up a notch in weight/ size, and have fewer 3rd party options, compared e.g. to Sony/Canon with Sigma. Bigger/ heavier lenses = slower AF tracking etc.
other points (I run Fuji and Sony and Phase systems):
Fuji lenses are very good, but not at the extraordinary level FF lenses have reached recently. Am waiting/hoping for a 3rd party manufacturer to support this - please Sigma... bring your innovations to G mount. Hopefully the huge sales hit the 100S has been will be a tipping point.
(e.g the pixel shift feature is great, but need better lenses to do it justice. Only the 110mm is really up to that in Fuji range at present)
AF works well, decent face tracking, but nowhere near the levels of Sony and Canon. If you're shooting action, or models on the move, you need to stick with latest gen FF. If you're not, then just be happy you have wide on chip AF. That's fantastic compared to Phase One.
Big files - not just good for large prints, but also for cropping in. Did a major shoot recently where I could pull just one model out of a group and have perfect sharp file without softness or upsampling. Size matters.
100S vs original 100 - yes the GFX100 body was too big with weird design ergonomics, but those aside, it is much better for verticals (hello, magazine pages) where you have the vertical grip w duplicate buttons. There will not be a 'vertical grip' for 100S apparently. Also better EVF is a boon. Double batteries useful too. The original GFX100 still has its purpose/ needs, but I expect a rebate offer will arrive soon, dropping it to $8000 or so.
Shooting landscape? still life? architecture? tilt shift? printing big? - well Phase One IQ4-150 MF is still king here, if you can afford it. The base ISO output and color for ultimate repro is a level above Fuji/Sony/Canon. But at near $40,000, so it should be. The XF is a dinosaur. The XT is fun but a crazy price, although price is often not the problem for top level working pros and/or wealthy amateurs.
Random thoughts.
-
My main issue is that I need to save a full-sized JPG in order to zoom in completely. Otherwise, the resolutions of the rear LCD and EVF work fine.
Thanks. I was wondering if Raw+JPG was still a requirement to get a fully detailed focus check.
-
...but this camera is 600 dpi NATIVE at 16x20"! Will it make a medium-size print that has unusual micro-detail? ... My suspicion going in is that, if there's an effect, it'll be right on the edge of vision ... I've had a chance to stand very close to a large original print of Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter Storm (which I'm almost sure is an 8x10" negative), and there's something about it that even a very good mechanical reproduction (a fancy art poster produced from a drum scan of an original print) of the same image doesn't capture. ... I'm not sure if inkjet printing can capture that micro-detail beyond 300 dpi, but this is the camera to bring it out if it's there...
... Not sure the LightJet can keep up with modern 12-color inkjet in terms of color and dynamic range, but the "no dot gain" element is interesting.
Dan
I had a similar experience when looking at some Ansel Adams' prints, as well as color prints from 8x10" negs made by Richard Misrach and others, and prints from my 8x10 negs from years ago (except my photos were artistically pathetic by comparison :-). In addition to making inkjet prints in 600dpi mode, you may want to consider some comparisons using digital C prints on Fuji Maxima Matte HD prints at Bay Photo. HD means high res -maybe around 400 ppi, and matte instead of glossy because glossy is way too shiny and glaring, whereas the Maxima Matte has a nice sheen to it and is more directly comparable to analog prints made on N surface paper. Prints done "HD" vs plain Fuji Maxima Matte do show significantly more detail, and have a little more detail than the commercial inkjet prints I've had done.
I think you'll find that when a large print is viewed from a couple feet away the inkjet prints will look better, but when viewed with "nose-to-print" you'll see a smoothness and detail that is superior to the usual inkjet prints (not sure about 600ppi ones, as I don't think I've ever seen any). Prints on the HD paper will likely make seeing resolution differences between formats more apparent.
I think that the difficult part will be to shoot and software-process the 100S vs FF photos to be as close as possible in white balance, tint, shadows, highlights, sharpness, etc. My own tests done with a Pentax 645Z (55mm and 75mm lenses) and later with a GFX100 (45, 50, 63mm lenses) as compared to Sony A7RIV (with Voigtlander 50/2 apo, etc.) showed me that although the lenses I used on the Sony were a little sharper than the GF lenses, and a lot sharper than the Pentax 55mm), that the end result print quality from the larger format cameras were, for me at least, superior, even in 16x20s when viewed from a normal distance - something about the color quality and tonality. But my own tests were not scientific and maybe yours will be more exact, and provable so-to-speak, and who knows - maybe you'll reach a different conclusion.
Of course the IQ of FF vs. the 44mm format cameras (as I prefer to call them) is one thing, and there are myriad other factors to consider about the 100S. I've now have that camera and like it, overall. Things to look at are how accurate and consistent is AF-S vs manual focus. This varies by lens used, and I found that taking about four shots using the smallest spot AF is needed to guarantee getting the most accurate focus. But manual focus is not perfect either even using the highest magnification in the EVF. I was not successful in using focus peaking (probably due to my lack of experience with it). I never was that particular when I shot FF, so I don't know how it compares, but that is definitely one area to be careful about.
Just my 2 cents anyway. Looking forward to your future article!
PhotoDan
-
Big files - not just good for large prints, but also for cropping in. Did a major shoot recently where I could pull just one model out of a group and have perfect sharp file without softness or upsampling. Size matters.
Yup.
But that thing is a beast compared to my Fuji Xt4 and lenses for carrying around all day.
-
"But that thing is a beast compared to my Fuji Xt4 and lenses for carrying around all day."
Would be really interesting to see an unbiased and objective comparison between Fujifilm X and Fujifilm GFX series cameras. (Same sensor generation)
At which enlargement could a sophisticated viewer tell them apart?
At which desired enlargement size would the GFX series be the better choice?
What are the bulk and weight differences?
-
"But that thing is a beast compared to my Fuji Xt4 and lenses for carrying around all day."
Would be really interesting to see an unbiased and objective comparison between Fujifilm X and Fujifilm GFX series cameras. (Same sensor generation)
At which enlargement could a sophisticated viewer tell them apart?
At which desired enlargement size would the GFX series be the better choice?
What are the bulk and weight differences?
Why? The comparison is that they're two distinct products who have different roles for different users. If you need optical reach, you grab a X body, if you need to go larger than 24x36 you grab the GFX. If you don't want to carry around the weight of the 100s & lenses, then you grab the X.
It's like comparing a Vespa & a Ducati - they're both 2 wheeled motorcycles, both will get you there, but there's a cost & performance difference.
-
So why did Ansel Adams carry around an 8x10 view camera and film holders in the countryside? The GFX is much handier! Just say'n.
-
If I can get an X-T4 out of Fujifilm at the same time (and I'm trying), there's a really interesting "three sizes of the same sensor comparison". I also have an A7r IV. All three use the same sensor generation, the same pixel pitch and, in fact, the same pixel structure. They're really the same sensor (or as close as you can get) in three different sizes. They unfortunately use three different sets of color filtration,and the X-T4 has a higher rated base ISO, although there's quite a bit of talk that it may be oddly rated, and closer than one might think to ISO 100 on a Sony. I don't know if the GFX is more similar to its Fujifilm stablemate or to the Sony (which is generally thought to be pretty accurate in terms of ISO.
It's actually rare to come up with such similar sensors in a range of sizes - the 24 MP APS-C sensors aren't related to any full-frame or medium format sensors, and the 24 MP FF sensors are much lower pixel density than just about anything else. They aren't actually related to the 50 MP medium format sensor (they're slightly less dense, and a different design) The 42 MP Sony and 46 MP Nikon FF sensors seem at first glance like they might be related to 24 MP APS-C sensors, but they don't turn out to be. This trio is, in fact, the closest set of relatives in a long time (if not ever)...
There is one possible addition to the comparison that I won't be able to come up with at the same time - the $50,000 Phase One IQ4 150. It's the largest version of that same basic sensor I don't know if I might be able to come up with one somehow for a few days at one point or another, but almost certainly not while the two Fujis are here.
The Sony, of course, has different processing (minimized, but not eliminated by shooting Raw), and the X-T4 is X-Trans (again, a variable that is hard to eliminate). To add further complication, the GFX is a slightly different aspect ratio...
24x36" prints of the same or similar scene from the three cameras on the same printer would be very interesting. I'll try and do it, shooting landscape in Yellowstone NP. It would be the closest anyone's ever come to measuring a pure resolution effect - even with all the variables, every other combination I can think of is worse.
Replacing the X-T4 with a Pentax K3 mk III (I don't think I can come up with one at the same time) would eliminate the "one camera is XTrans" variable, but it would add another variable - a third set of processing and algorithms - plus I'm not sure what lens to use on the Pentax.
The two Fujifilm bodies share quite similar default processing, and should behave similarly in terms of any noise reduction applied to raw files (etc.). The Sony will, of course, differ by more... XTrans throws in a demosaicing challenge - I can't use DxO (my preferred high-end converter) for all three, because DxO doesn't like XTrans. C1 for all three? Adobe would work, but would be a lowest common denominator...
Of course, there's no lens that will go on all three bodies easily. There's really not even a lens that will go on any two. The closest thing would be some manual lens that was adapted on all three bodies (the ideal comparison would be the 85mm Otus on everything, because that would be darn close to a perfect lens on each camera...). I don't still have the Otus around, nor do I have the right collection of adapters... Of course, even that would be opening up field of view as a variable - I think it would be most interesting with matched fields of view (and that's going to mean three different lenses, and probably all zooms).
Even with three different lenses and trying to get the post-processing close, but knowing it won't be exact, it should still be revealing...
24x36" prints on the Canon Pro-2000 should be pretty decent comparison fodder, no?
Let me know about any other considerations anyone thinks should be included...
-
If I can get an X-T4 out of Fujifilm at the same time (and I'm trying), there's a really interesting "three sizes of the same sensor comparison". I also have an A7r IV. All three use the same sensor generation, the same pixel pitch and, in fact, the same pixel structure. . . .
That would make for a interesting report from my perspective. I have no intention of investing in medium-format, and have for the most part even abandoned full-frame (I still own but rarely use a Nikon D800E) in favor of my compact, lightweight Fuji X bodies and lenses. But the trio you are proposing would offer considerable insight into the range of image quality available from the current generation of handheld cameras.
My hunch is that the GFX 100S is targeted more at amateurs like me than toward professional shooters, and that may also be true of its bigger and older sibling: I just don't see what purpose they serve for a working pro with a requirement for fast performance or high resolution that wouldn't be respectively better handled by a full-frame Nikon or Sony or Canon, on the one hand, or a Hasselblad or Phase One, on the other.
But there seems to be no shortage of "enthusiasts" for whom price is no object, and whose backs and legs are better suited than mine for carrying around heavy and bulky equipment that gives them the "pop" and cropping options of 100 megapixels—and the early sales reports seem to indicate that Fuji's marketing wizards know what they are doing.
-
My hunch is that the GFX 100S is targeted more at amateurs like me than toward professional shooters, and that may also be true of its bigger and older sibling: I just don't see what purpose they serve for a working pro with a requirement for fast performance or high resolution that wouldn't be respectively better handled by a full-frame Nikon or Sony or Canon, on the one hand, or a Hasselblad or Phase One, on the other.
This was exactly my experience with the GFX100, but I find myself using the GFX100s a lot more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Given that the sensor and processor is identical to the GFX 100, I don’t see any point in a review of the GFX 100s for other than the difference in physical ergonomics. Size and handling characteristics aside (which may be a great improvement for some use-cases) the 100s is merely a down spec’d version; one battery, no removable viewfinder, no ability to use tilt adapter, lower resolution EVF, lower refresh rate EVF, no possibility of a vertical grip. What’s to review? Even the supposed half a stop improvement in the IBIS, and the different AF algorithm will be “gone” when the latest firmware for the GFX 100 is released in June.
The GFX 100 has been reviewed “to death” by everyone and their uncle. Many of whom obviously never bothered to read the camera’s manual. And let me suggest that a 36” print isn’t even going to make the sensor sweat - so if that’s the comparison point with other formats, don’t bother.
Rand
Sorrel and Fern GFX 100
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Still-Life/Flowers/i-NxQ4L2F/0/d0294a2b/O/2946D5D0-9316-409B-BBE1-45D93E8B9122.jpg)
-
Given that the sensor and processor is identical to the GFX 100, I don’t see any point in a review of the GFX 100s for other than the difference in physical ergonomics. Size and handling characteristics aside (which may be a great improvement for some use-cases) the 100s is merely a down spec’d version; one battery, no removable viewfinder, no ability to use tilt adapter, lower resolution EVF, lower refresh rate EVF, no possibility of a vertical grip. What’s to review? Even the supposed half a stop improvement in the IBIS, and the different AF algorithm will be “gone” when the latest firmware for the GFX 100 is released in June.
That’s certainly one way to look at it.
I look at the relationship btwn them the exact opposite way though.
To me none ofthe GFX100 advantages have any practical value but the smaller size and lower weight of the 100s make it a much more useful value proposition for the niche the GFX addresses better than the other cameras I use, which is landscape and slow paces « street » photography.
I rarely used by 100 vs the Z7/Z7II or IQ3-100, I find myself using the 100s much more frequently.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me, the financial loss of selling a GFX100 makes moving to the 100s a no go. 10K, for the 100, and it's still priced there, 6K for the 100s, so you will have to sell the GFX100 at around 4K? Quite a loss.
I prefer a vertical grip as I do a lot of portrait orientation shots for stitching later on. The tilt adapter I have used and comes in nice for macro work at times. As I had one from my 50s, was an easy decision to keep it.
Image quality should be very close to the same between the two cameras. There are some claims that the 100s has a bit more shadow recovery than the 100, for what I shoot the 100 has plenty.
There is a 4.0 firmware coming in June for the GFX100, and Fuji is claiming that it's designed to bring the GFX100 into "spec" with the 100s, Not sure if this will improve image quality or not. Seems mostly pointed to AF improvements and video.
The weight mass of the GFX100 is still much smaller than a Phase One XF / IQ4 and 40-80 lens, and has a lot of more modern features.
The main issue I have always had with the Fuji GFX family of cameras is manual focus via the EVF, or LCD. The EVF on the GFX100 is rated to a higher pixel count and I still can't often dial in the exact manual focus needed, with or without peaking (and Fuji's implementation of focus peaking is still not close to other cameras like Sony/Nikon or Leica). So manual focus with the lower pixel count EVF, could be even more problematic.
For the GFX cameras, I have always relied on AF. When the AF gets a hit, it's almost always 100% for me and I just depend on it. It can't handle low contrast scenes well even on the GFX100 which is PDAF, so I would welcome any improvements from the 100s AF via firmware.
Can't argue on the fact that the 100s is much smaller, and thus can be carried in the field with less effort, and if the 100s and 100 both camera out at the same time I would have opt'd for the 100s. Just can't take the loss now.
Paul
-
That’s certainly one way to look at it.
I look at the relationship btwn them the exact opposite way though.
To me none ofthe GFX100 advantages have any practical value but the smaller size and lower weight of the 100s make it a much more useful value proposition for the niche the GFX addresses better than the other cameras I use, which is landscape and slow paces « street » photography.
I rarely used by 100 vs the Z7/Z7II or IQ3-100, I find myself using the 100s much more frequently.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yup, that’s my point. Smaller, lighter, more “packable.” Review complete. Nothing else to say, really.
Rand
-
Image quality should be very close to the same between the two cameras. There are some claims that the 100s has a bit more shadow recovery than the 100, for what I shoot the 100 has plenty.
The image quality is identical. Same sensor, same processor, and as of June, the same firmware.
I’ve seen zero difference in files.
Rand
-
There probably isn't more than a very minor difference in files (I've seen some suggestion of minor changes in processing around the PDAF files, which may be possible to back-port to the original 100 via firmware). If, however, it's a lot more usable, it can be reviewed in ways the original simply couldn't... Also, if it's a much more pleasant camera to use, it encourages people to use it. When I had the original in for review, it was such a pain that it never got far beyond test shots. If this one is ergonomically much better in size, weight and interface, it'll be more usable for real images...
I taught photography for over a decade - I know camera interfaces well, and I can pick up anything, get it into the desired mode and shoot with it. Some menus are trickier than others, but "get it in aperture priority, shooting raw, with single shot focus and a movable focus point"? That should be five minutes for an experienced photographer on any camera without the manual (well, not if the camera is a 4x5" Wista and doesn't have those settings). The original 100 is the only camera I've encountered in a decade or more where I couldn't do that...
If the 100S has that fixed, and is easier to carry and hold, it's a far better creative tool, and I'll have different images to review it with...
-
Different strokes I guess. Never have had issues with the menus, interface etc with the 100.
Menu system follows all Fuji cameras I have used and mirrored the 50s.
Hope you have a better experience with the 100s.
I use Manual mode exclusively, setup for 3 shot bracketing.
Paul
-
There probably isn't more than a very minor difference in files (I've seen some suggestion of minor changes in processing around the PDAF files, which may be possible to back-port to the original 100 via firmware). If, however, it's a lot more usable, it can be reviewed in ways the original simply couldn't... Also, if it's a much more pleasant camera to use, it encourages people to use it. When I had the original in for review, it was such a pain that it never got far beyond test shots. If this one is ergonomically much better in size, weight and interface, it'll be more usable for real images...
I taught photography for over a decade - I know camera interfaces well, and I can pick up anything, get it into the desired mode and shoot with it. Some menus are trickier than others, but "get it in aperture priority, shooting raw, with single shot focus and a movable focus point"? That should be five minutes for an experienced photographer on any camera without the manual (well, not if the camera is a 4x5" Wista and doesn't have those settings). The original 100 is the only camera I've encountered in a decade or more where I couldn't do that...
If the 100S has that fixed, and is easier to carry and hold, it's a far better creative tool, and I'll have different images to review it with...
The physical UI of the 100s is more classical, pretty much identical to that of my Nikons and therefore more approachable.
I find the Fuji menus confusing also. No change here. But it’s possible to configure the UI so as to very rarely have to use them so that ends up being a minor pain.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There probably isn't more than a very minor difference in files (I've seen some suggestion of minor changes in processing around the PDAF files, which may be possible to back-port to the original 100 via firmware).
Already done. Read Jim Kasson’s blog on the subject.
As a matter of fact, for anyone wanting detailed, carefully tested info on all aspects of both the GFX 100 and the 100s, Jim Kasson’s tests / reports are excellent.
Rand
-
Here’s something interesting for consideration in Dan’s review. Start at 17.5 minutes in….
https://youtu.be/s2jNkPlGJAohttps://youtu.be/s2jNkPlGJAo
Rand
-
That strikes me as a VERY good argument to use an L-bracket on this thing (which will be supported by the edge of the body as well as the poor-quality bushing)... I suspect we don't want to know how tripod mounts are attached to MANY cameras... Are they all (or mostly) like this? The dual-grip bodies are likely to be different, but is anything else (other than an old 'blad that is machined out of one piece of metal)...
-
That strikes me as a VERY good argument to use an L-bracket on this thing …
Strikes me as an EVEN BETTER argument to be wary of ‘utilitarian’ Japanese build [/levity, sort-of] and these reports, from a very reliable source, aren’t helping … “Unfortunately my Fuji GFX100S shutter has failed. This seems to be a relatively common problem … “
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/gfx100s-shutter-failure.71022/
-
Strikes me as an EVEN BETTER argument to be wary of ‘utilitarian’ Japanese build [/levity, sort-of] and these reports, from a very reliable source, aren’t helping … “Unfortunately my Fuji GFX100S shutter has failed. This seems to be a relatively common problem … “
https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/gfx100s-shutter-failure.71022/
I may have mentioned this already but the rear screen of my 100s is broken although I never dropped it and don’t remember any significant shock.
Never has the issue with any other digital camera I’ve used.
It has no functional or usability impact so I have not had it fixed yet but it raises concerns for me in terms of robustness.
-
It does look like we're seeing build quality issues here... The shutter is said to be a wiring issue (something like a cold solder joint that affected a certain batch)? Fujifilm says it's a five minute fix - but you shouldn't have to send a brand new camera in for repair! It's happened to a number of manufacturers, but it's not a good look...
Dan
-
It does look like we're seeing build quality issues here... The shutter is said to be a wiring issue (something like a cold solder joint that affected a certain batch)? Fujifilm says it's a five minute fix - but you shouldn't have to send a brand new camera in for repair! It's happened to a number of manufacturers, but it's not a good look...
Dan
My Subaru is in the shop for it's 2nd recall, my Toyota truck needs it's 2nd. The pieces of equipment are incredibly complex. I'm not saying we should expect these issues, and none of us want them but it doesn't surprise me at all.
-
I have a similar thread going on the mirrorless forum, since not all of the cameras involved in the test are medium format. Someone over there mentioned the X-T4 has a different way of measuring ISO, which means its base ISO of 160 is far more like a Sony or Nikon version of ISO 100. I remembered reading this when I was reminded of it... Does anyone know if this is also true of the GFX 100S? If so, I should probably throw the Nikon Z7 (and its base ISO of 64) into the comparison...
-
I have a similar thread going on the mirrorless forum, since not all of the cameras involved in the test are medium format. Someone over there mentioned the X-T4 has a different way of measuring ISO, which means its base ISO of 160 is far more like a Sony or Nikon version of ISO 100. I remembered reading this when I was reminded of it... Does anyone know if this is also true of the GFX 100S? If so, I should probably throw the Nikon Z7 (and its base ISO of 64) into the comparison...
My take would be to ignore ISO and shoot a color checker chart. Open the raw files in raw digger and adjust exposure so white patch on color checker is around +2.5 EV when show in raw digger.
Exposure meters and raw converters work very much differently...
Best regards
Erik
-
I think that the difficult part will be to shoot and software-process the 100S vs FF photos to be as close as possible in white balance, tint, shadows, highlights, sharpness, etc. My own tests done with a Pentax 645Z (55mm and 75mm lenses) and later with a GFX100 (45, 50, 63mm lenses) as compared to Sony A7RIV (with Voigtlander 50/2 apo, etc.) showed me that although the lenses I used on the Sony were a little sharper than the GF lenses, and a lot sharper than the Pentax 55mm), that the end result print quality from the larger format cameras were, for me at least, superior, even in 16x20s when viewed from a normal distance - something about the color quality and tonality. But my own tests were not scientific and maybe yours will be more exact, and provable so-to-speak, and who knows - maybe you'll reach a different conclusion.
PhotoDan
I have a Sony system with some of the GM lenses and have run into the same observation. My typical prints are 30x40 and while the sony lenses are sharper, there is something in the print from my Pentax that the sony prints don't seem to have. It also seems like the sony files are more "brittle" in post production and in tonal transitions. I'm hoping to jump to another MF system that has better lenses and ongoing support (seems like the pentax team retired).