What do owners of the GFX100 II think of the camera? While comparisons to the first version are welcome, I am most interested in how users like the second version and what their experience with it is like. Interested in stills, not video.
Peter Figen wrote:
There are a bunch of user's experience, mine included in a thread a few ticks below this one.
Thanks, but here's actually not that much in that thread, mostly about the location of the remote release, which wouldn't affect me much. I would be interested in hearing from a variety of users, if such exist in this forum, about other issues and other aspects of the camera.
Fuji seems to have been designing this camera to be used more in the way that FF cameras are used. Thus the emphasis on the reported speed with which it powers up and is ready to shoot and the emphasis on AI subject recognition, other improvements in the autofocus, and the fps rate. There is also a reported improvement in the high ISO image quality.
All of these changes seem to mark a departure from the past emphasis of the camera, though certainly consistent with the direction in which the GFX100S had already moved.
Nothing seems that different for studio or tripod/landscape uses, but it does seem designed to encourage additional and other types of usage, without giving up anything for landscape and studio users.
I think you need to re-read that thread. I didn't talk about the purported higher iso improvements, but those are fantasy as well. So much of Fuji's hype, and it really is hype, is just out and out bullshit, or there's just a thin thread of reality to it so they can make their claims legally but don't actually apply to how most people use the camera. But believe who you want to believe. Go out and spend the money and let us know what YOU think. Worst money by far that I've ever spent on a camera, digital or not, so much in fact that I could not even use the camera in the studio due to the absolutely piece of crap new and improved viewfinder and lcd, and used the 100s instead. Yeah, I bought that marketing hype hook line and sinker, and in actual professional use I came away with a very very different opinion.
Peter Figen wrote:
I think you need to re-read that thread. I didn't talk about the purported higher iso improvements, but those are fantasy as well. So much of Fuji's hype, and it really is hype, is just out and out bullshit, or there's just a thin thread of reality to it so they can make their claims legally but don't actually apply to how most people use the camera. But believe who you want to believe. Go out and spend the money and let us know what YOU think. Worst money by far that I've ever spent on a camera, digital or not, so much in fact that I could not even use the camera in the studio due to the absolutely piece of crap new and improved viewfinder and lcd, and used the 100s instead. Yeah, I bought that marketing hype hook line and sinker, and in actual professional use I came away with a very very different opinion. ...Show more →
I'm not interested in a fight. I'd much rather hear from a variety of users, if such exist here. Thanks for your contribution.
chiron wrote:
I'm not interested in a fight. I'd much rather hear from a variety of users, if such exist here. Thanks for your contribution.
It's not a fight. There are quite detailed examples of experiences there. I have no idea how you plan to use the camera but for me, and I've talked in some length about exactly how I use it and where it falls pathetically short in the real world, it comes nowhere near to living up to its hype, and hype it is. If you want to live in the Fuji bubble and not listen to real world use issues, there's nothing I can do about that, but if you are going to use it in a similar manner to how I use it, everything I've listed there makes it not wholly unusable but a major pain in the ass and makes it worse, a camera where you're fighting it every single step of the way.
That's why I suggest, since you're not seeming willing to read through what I've and others have written, you need to go get your own and form your own opinions. It feels to me like you're looking to find users who agree fully with Fuji's advertising hype to somehow give you permission to drop the dough yourself. Sometimes you need to be a trailblazer and find out for yourself. It's entirely possible that it'll be the perfect camera for you in every way, but for me, the more I use it, and more idiotic things I encounter, it rapidly turns into a wtf was Fuji thinking here. But again, don't take my word for it.
Landscape and other static subjects, mostly tripod mounted = GFX 100
Emphasis on hand held shooting, more responsive AF = GFX 100 II
But, if my emphasis was flexibility for hand held shooting, I’d get a Nikon Z9 and some of their new z, f/1.2 lenses over my GFX 100 II, in a heartbeat. I’m helping a friend with editing and processing some of his work from the Z9 w/ Noct, 85 f/1.2, the new 135 and the image quality is EXCELLENT + and gives nothing away to my GFX 100 II. Plus which, it is way faster AF, tracking, etc.
Landscape and other static subjects, mostly tripod mounted = GFX 100
Emphasis on hand held shooting, more responsive AF = GFX 100 II
But, if my emphasis was flexibility for hand held shooting, I’d get a Nikon Z9 and some of their new z, f/1.2 lenses over my GFX 100 II, in a heartbeat. I’m helping a friend with editing and processing some of his work from the Z9 w/ Noct, 85 f/1.2, the new 135 and the image quality is EXCELLENT + and gives nothing away to my GFX 100 II. Plus which, it is way faster AF, tracking, etc.
That makes sense about what the II adds for hand-held shooting and what it doesn't add for landscape shots ,and I think the 8 stops of IBIS with the right lenses is very appealing. But on the issue of the Z, I still think that medium format sensors, even small medium format, adds a lot to many images. Not to all images, but to many. The Z9 is a great camera and will have better AF, but the II's sensor is about 70% larger!
chiron wrote:
That makes sense about what the II adds for hand-held shooting and what it doesn't add for landscape shots ,and I think the 8 stops of IBIS with the right lenses is very appealing. But on the issue of the Z, I still think that medium format sensors, even small medium format, adds a lot to many images. Not to all images, but to many. The Z9 is a great camera and will have better AF, but the II's sensor is about 70% larger!
Have you actually tried the new IBIS. Eight stops again is part of Fuji's overly optimistic hype. I've tested it somewhat and I'd say optimistically three stops and I'm a very steady hand holding machine. But eight stops, no way. You're making the mistake of believing the bullshit again. Take every one of their talking points and then go test it for yourself and you'll see.
Here's another one: battery life is about half of the 100s. You'll be lucky to get 300-400 shots on a charge. I was shooting Kait Dunton at The Baked Potato back in October using the 100 II and the 100s. Zero difference in AF in that nightclub situation. Zero difference in high ISO (3200/6400) performance but quite a shock to see the flashing red low battery light on the 100II not even halfway through the night. And, yes, of course you can change batteries then but it's so so much better if you don't have to. You so, however have to kinda ignore what you see in the viewfinder and let the histogram be your exposure guide as the viewfinder is too bright and you cannot turn it down effectively. But again, don't take my word. Go rent a camera for a couple of weeks to try it out.
chiron wrote:
That makes sense about what the II adds for hand-held shooting and what it doesn't add for landscape shots ,and I think the 8 stops of IBIS with the right lenses is very appealing. But on the issue of the Z, I still think that medium format sensors, even small medium format, adds a lot to many images. Not to all images, but to many. The Z9 is a great camera and will have better AF, but the II's sensor is about 70% larger!
Yup… that’s what I thought too… until I started looking at files from the Z9, shot on the best Z lenses. I no longer think this.
For pure landscape work, where maximum detail and dynamic range “might” be critical, perhpahs “still so”… but for 99.9% of other stuff I’d take the Z9. And this from someone with a GFX 100 and a GFX 100 II.
Here are fourteen user reviews from the B&H site. Eleven are five stars. Two people ding the camera: one doesn't own it and the other dings it because his Godxo transmitter didn't work.
In my opinion, the most thoughtful review is the one four-star review. He loves the camera.
Rand47 wrote:
Yup… that’s what I thought too… until I started looking at files from the Z9, shot on the best Z lenses. I no longer think this.
For pure landscape work, where maximum detail and dynamic range “might” be critical, perhpahs “still so”… but for 99.9% of other stuff I’d take the Z9. And this from someone with a GFX 100 and a GFX 100 II.
Rand
I don't have Nikon gear, so I can't look at this in my own shots. How would you compare the Z9 + lenses to the best of Sony (if you are able to make a comparison)?
Depends on what lens. Nikon has a bunch of lenses Sony doesn’t and vice versa. Nikon has the best 24-105/120 on the market, Sony has the best 24-70, and on and on.
Overall they are roughly equal all considered.
chiron wrote:
I don't have Nikon gear, so I can't look at this in my own shots. How would you compare the Z9 + lenses to the best of Sony (if you are able to make a comparison)?
chiron wrote:
I don't have Nikon gear, so I can't look at this in my own shots. How would you compare the Z9 + lenses to the best of Sony (if you are able to make a comparison)?
I have a completely irrational hatred for Sony. I invested in the original A900 camera and Sony Zeiss A-mount lenses (a million digital-years ago), which Sony summarily abandoned. I’ve not edited any modern Sony files for clients, so really cannot comment on a comparison with Nikon Z.
One thing Nikon did with their Z mount was make it very large diameter. I think this may have something to do with the amazing performance of their new top tier lenses.
Fpessolano wrote:
I am happy. Combining a 100II with a z9 is the end of the road for me, at least till one of the two breaks.
Is the 100 II your first medium format camera? What do you like and not like about it? If you have had other medium format cameras, how is the 100 II better or worse? What do you use the Fuji for?
I am using the 100 II (after using the 100s in the past) alongside with Sony and Leica.
To me: the 100 II kept all the good things about image quality from the 100s but with the better IBIS and the much better AF it ist now also an all-round camera I can rely on in daily use and even some more AF demanding situations where in the past I would always have brought my Sony for this use because of the much better AF in that system and the also very decent image quality.
So I am a very happy user. In combination with the best GF lenses (20-35, 30TS, 55, 80, 110, 250) the image quality is still superior to any full frame camera I have seen and in conjunction with the LM motor lenses the AF is very good.
