I saw someone mention a difference in colors, but wanted to ask if there was a comparison of the sensors posted somewhere. I used to have the original 50S and should have kept it. I thought the detail with that sensor was amazing, but is it only appreciated with really, really large prints? I am jumping back in and trying to decide between these two.
@Makten has the 50R and the 50sii and he says the colors/detail are the same. I have the 50r and the 100s and I prefer the SOOC colors from my 50R while the 100S is a delight to use and the RAWs have a little more headroom.
Overall if I had waited a bit longer I would have picked up the 50SII instead of the 100S. I was lucky that I got my copy around the launch day so I have had a lot of fun with the 100S. Love the IBIS and the soft shutter sound. Even then I sometimes like to take my 50R + 50mm and dont find myself restricted by gear.
TLDR - unless you care for speeds, the 50SII would be great as the IBIS and the shutter sound are the game changers.
envydd wrote:
@Makten@ has the 50R and the 50sii and he says the colors/detail are the same. I have the 50r and the 100s and I prefer the SOOC colors from my 50R while the 100S is a delight to use and the RAWs have a little more headroom.
Overall if I had waited a bit longer I would have picked up the 50SII instead of the 100S. I was lucky that I got my copy around the launch day so I have had a lot of fun with the 100S. Love the IBIS and the soft shutter sound. Even then I sometimes like to take my 50R + 50mm and dont find myself restricted by gear.
TLDR - unless you care for speeds, the 50SII would be great as the IBIS and the shutter sound are the game changers.
That's good to hear and I appreciate the feedback. I wish they had kept the tilting EVF on both cameras. I'm still on fence on the benefit of 50MP versus 100MP.
If money is not an issue, get the GFX100s, simple. Much better AF and lot more MPs (I don't crop much) to play with. Personally I would take older GFX50s over GFX50s II is trying to save money. I don't need no IBIS for my shoots (portraits hand held and landscapes on tripod). Your needs might be different. I never had issues shooting 110mm f2 @f2 hand held at 1/125. That's what I use for 99% of my shots with GFX50s.
I found that handheld portraits with flash/ambient combination were a real challenge with the original GFX 50s. The IBIS of the GFX100 made a HUGE difference in my keeper rate.
kenbennett wrote:
I found that handheld portraits with flash/ambient combination were a real challenge with the original GFX 50s. The IBIS of the GFX100 made a HUGE difference in my keeper rate.
In my case I didn't have any issues with GFX50s (flash/ambient combination here). A few shots I missed in 4+ yrs were mainly due to slower AF on the GFX50s. For a 2-3 years I even used mechanical shutter which everyone says no-no.
I chose the 50S II over the 100S because I have zero use for 100 freaking megapixels. If anything, that would force me to upgrade my computer (again) for no reason at all. Sure, better AF would be nice, but really nothing else. The ancient 50 mpix sensor is still better than anything I'll ever need.
I came from the 50R and IBIS was the only reason to upgrade. To me it makes all the difference since I seldom use a tripod and half of the year it's pretty darn dark up here (Sweden). Now I can handhold at ~1/10x the focal length; 1/4 for the 45, 1/6 for the 63, and so on.
There are a few things that annoy me with the camera:
#1: JPG's are automatically corrected for vignetting. Not possible to turn off. I really, really hate this, because it ruins the otherwise very nice JPG's.
#2: Auto white balance is utterly useless. I've never experienced any other camera ever that has auto WB so completely off.
#3: No exposure compensation dial, which sucks especially when using the 35-70 that doesn't have an aperture ring.
#4: AF always locks on the background instead of the closest object within the focusing area. It's also more or less worthless in low light, and MF isn't much better because the viewfinder frame rate is really low in low light.
If the 100S had an option for smaller raws it would be a no brainer (if cost is not an issue). But for some stupid reason you have to shoot at full resolution and thus I could not choose that camera.
On #3 this should be similar to the 100s. There is a small exposure compensation button by the shutter release. You can set this to use the rear dial while pressing it or without.
george malamis wrote:
On #3 this should be similar to the 100s. There is a small exposure compensation button by the shutter release. You can set this to use the rear dial while pressing it or without.
I have the rear dial set for exposure compensation on the 100S, just like it is on all of my other cameras.
I have never shot a JPEG so I have no idea about those, but I find the AWB to be excellent as it requires little or no correction at all when processing my RAW files. Back when I shot with the Nikon D800 and D810, it was not uncommon to require 1000-1500ēK of correction in outdoor scenes.
One thing I miss on the 100S (aside from the overall better build quality of the earlier cameras) is the EVF tilt adapter - I actually found this very useful on my 50S when it was too bright and sunny to see the rear LCD.
george malamis wrote:
On #3 this should be similar to the 100s. There is a small exposure compensation button by the shutter release. You can set this to use the rear dial while pressing it or without.
Yes, but then you must press the button again to alter aperture or shutter speed, since there are only two dials. So, you don't have direct access to exposure compensation. The button is also so small that it's hard to find without looking. And nearly impossible to use with gloves.
Edit: This is not a problem for all the lenses with an aperture ring. But when using the 35-70 it's a PITA that you have to switch between aperture and exposure compensation.
You have two options on with the button, to work only while being pressed (i don't use it this way), or you have it set to press it once during initial set up and never have to do it again - I just use the rear wheel for exposure compensation. My front wheel is set pretty standard for iso and aperature. Even though I originally learned with a canon film camera and having aperature control on the lens I prefer it on the front dial. I bought a fringer gfx/ef adapter and that has the aperature control only on the adapter so back to square one there lol.
george malamis wrote:
You have two options on with the button, to work only while being pressed (i don't use it this way), or you have it set to press it once during initial set up and never have to do it again - I just use the rear wheel for exposure compensation. My front wheel is set pretty standard for iso and aperature. Even though I originally learned with a canon film camera and having aperature control on the lens I prefer it on the front dial. I bought a fringer gfx/ef adapter and that has the aperature control only on the adapter so back to square one there lol....Show more →
I have the button set to toggle, and use the rear dial for exposure compensation solely with all the lenses that have an aperture ring. The problem is when I use the 35-70, and have to remember to push the darn button every time I want to switch between the functions. A separate dial would be a lot more convenient. I'd rather have that than the top display that I have never understood what it's good for. I mean, you got the same info on the rear screen. And you can't see the top screen when shooting anyway.
Here's an illustration of the white balance issue with 50S II (50R behaved exactly the same). Who thinks the camera auto version is preferable?
The strangest thing is that measuring against the sky through a semi-opaque white lid does not render the sky neutral. So it doesn't even work with custom WB.
Capture one is a bit "too good" though, because now the shadows are way too warm instead. For a JPG OOC I'd prefer the middle version.
Note that these are with the "Nostalgic neg" simulation, which is a lot warmer than all the other sims.
Makten wrote:
Here's an illustration of the white balance issue with 50S II (50R behaved exactly the same). Who thinks the camera auto version is preferable?
The strangest thing is that measuring against the sky through a semi-opaque white lid does not render the sky neutral. So it doesn't even work with custom WB.
Capture one is a bit "too good" though, because now the shadows are way too warm instead. For a JPG OOC I'd prefer the middle version.
Note that these are with the "Nostalgic neg" simulation, which is a lot warmer than all the other sims.
Yes, that is pretty striking and I agree with you that the middle one is best.
Have you experimented in post with what you would have to do to get the first image to look more like the second?
chiron wrote:
Yes, that is pretty striking and I agree with you that the middle one is best.
Have you experimented in post with what you would have to do to get the first image to look more like the second?
The only significant difference is white balance, which is no problem if you shoot raw and know how you want the image to look. But since I want to use JPG quite often, I have to measure it more or less before every shot if it's overcast. When it's sunny I usually set it to 5300-5500K. That's close enough. In such conditions the camera usually chooses 4000-4500K. I really don't understand how it can be so bad, but OTOH "daylight" is 4500K according do Fuji. Which it's definitely not.
I thought that may be the case and appreciate the insights.
