p.7 #1 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Horses for courses for sure @gdanmitchell ... But the OP specifically asked this question:
justandyphoto wrote: In summary, is the GFX experience worth it for landscape work, despite the extra money invested and weight carried in the kit? The similar color output is what has me thinking primarily about adding the GFX series to the kit instead of another brand (although the additional investment is similar since it's adding an extra set of gear to the kit either way).
My simplest answer is a resounding YES. I’ve given many of the reasons earlier in the thread, so won’t bother repeating unless specifically asked.
p.7 #2 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
chiron wrote:
The sensors in the GFX 100S and 100 II are about 70% larger than full-frame sensors. Full-frame sensors are about 60% larger than APS-C sensors.
This suggests that those arguing the medium format of the GFX is not visually better in its output than full-frame sensors should also believe that full-frame sensors are not visibly different in their output than APS-C sensors.
APS-C sensors are about 62% larger than Micro Four-Thirds sensors. Thus, those who see no difference in medium format compared to full-frame should see no difference between APS-C and Micro Four-Thirds.
Since they see no differences in image quality anywhere--that is, they see the different sensor sizes as visually equivalent--then transitively they should see Micro Four-Thirds as the equivalent of both full-frame and medium format.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Or, where do they draw the line, and why do they draw it there?
In my view, with any of the above formats, there can be images of particular subject matter and lighting and display and camera settings that are not easily distinguished from another format. But with certain kinds of subject matter, lighting, display, and settings there are differences that seem very clear to me. This is especially true when looking at a sufficient number of different photographs in any one format....Show more →
p.7 #3 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
chiron wrote:
The sensors in the GFX 100S and 100 II are about 70% larger than full-frame sensors. Full-frame sensors are about 60% larger than APS-C sensors.
This suggests that those arguing the medium format of the GFX is not visually better in its output than full-frame sensors should also believe that full-frame sensors are not visibly different in their output than APS-C sensors.
APS-C sensors are about 62% larger than Micro Four-Thirds sensors. Thus, those who see no difference in medium format compared to full-frame should see no difference between APS-C and Micro Four-Thirds.
Since they see no differences in image quality anywhere--that is, they see the different sensor sizes as visually equivalent--then transitively they should see Micro Four-Thirds as the equivalent of both full-frame and medium format.
Not everyone can see differences in image quality, it takes a trained eye. And not everyone's eyes are trained in the same way to see those differences. And not all images will reveal those differences to the viewer.
If you can spot subtle differences between a GFX image and a FF image, and subtle differences between a FF image and an APS-C image, then likely the difference between a GFX image and an APS-C image will be more than subtle. But there are plenty of use cases where there could be no discernible difference at all, unless you examined the images at the pixel level or made a massive print.
p.7 #4 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
There are on-paper arguments and then there are real world examples.
I was curious how the famously pleasing Nikon 35/1.4 G would render compared to the X100VI.
They were both placed on a tripod, and of course there are some slight FOV differences. The Fuji was shot at f2 and the Nikon at f/2.8 to "normalize" the depth of field. I was personally surprised at how much smoother the Nikon bokeh was even "normalized" to the Fuji. These same differences can be seen between GFX and full frame too, especially with lenses like the 110.
Of course, every lens renders differently, but there's much more than just focal length and aperture at play.
p.7 #5 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Wow, still very different DOF despite "normalization". Did you try stopping down the Nikon any further? Would be cool to see when they become more similar.
p.7 #6 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
SGinNorcal wrote:
Wow, still very different DOF despite "normalization". Did you try stopping down the Nikon any further? Would be cool to see when they become more similar.
No, while it would be academically interesting, it really didn't apply to my use case. I like fast lenses wide open. It's also partly why one would move to GFX from FF IMO, these types of gains for "equivalent" lenses (on paper). There of course comes a point where the working DOF becomes so shallow and difficult to work at while wide open on a fast MF lens, so again, most are better off just shooting fast glass on FF unless they are the .1% that really needs that edge performance.
I wish I had access to the Fuji 23/2 because it's a more "modern" rendering lens vs the "vintage" rendering of the X100's. That would be a more apples to apple comparison I think.
When I had the GFX 50R and 50/3.5, I noted that shots from it had more bokeh than they had any right to, even compared to my FF kit at "equivalent" apertures.
p.7 #7 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Hmmm, I could do a APSC to MF comparison. XT5 at 23f2 and GFX50 with 32-64 at 44mm/f4, since 44 is actually labeled on the zoom ring. I could probably borrow a Sony FF with 35f2.8 or faster.
p.7 #8 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
I'm actually in the process of doing this, where I sold one of my X series and am trading it for a GFX 50s. I watched a million videos about how it handles, how slow it is, bad AF etc. And even more about how it's not a whole lot different to full frame ( I sold a perfectly great Sony A7 III to get into Fuji a few months ago). So I spent a few days thinking maybe I should just buy a Canon or Nikon or go back to Sony with an old A7R for my landscape, architecture, stuff-not-moving work.
And then it hit me- I don't care if it's a sluggish chunky brick, it's a Fuji. It's got film sims, it's got dials, it's going to feel "good" to me. I've shot all the brands over the last couple of decades, and even if it's demonstrably less powerful, I already know which one I'm going to enjoy picking up to shoot.
p.7 #9 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
I don't know if this was mentioned in the thread, but some good thoughts on the topic -
I have shot full frame, I am shooting with m43, x system and GFX. I don't care who says what, if it is a landscape that requires a wide or normal focal length I would reach for GFX every single time. Even if a theoretical result will look the same, the pleasure of working with and mind-blowness of GFX original images cannot be disputed.
p.7 #11 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Ditchell wrote:
I'm actually in the process of doing this, where I sold one of my X series and am trading it for a GFX 50s. I watched a million videos about how it handles, how slow it is, bad AF etc. And even more about how it's not a whole lot different to full frame ( I sold a perfectly great Sony A7 III to get into Fuji a few months ago). So I spent a few days thinking maybe I should just buy a Canon or Nikon or go back to Sony with an old A7R for my landscape, architecture, stuff-not-moving work.
And then it hit me- I don't care if it's a sluggish chunky brick, it's a Fuji. It's got film sims, it's got dials, it's going to feel "good" to me. I've shot all the brands over the last couple of decades, and even if it's demonstrably less powerful, I already know which one I'm going to enjoy picking up to shoot.
That's one take I guess. I thought the 50R was a chunky, slow brick and realized very quickly how far cameras have come since then...not having all of the modern film sims stinks too.
Loving Fuji doesn't mean that every Fuji has a great shooting experience, or feels "good" just because it's a Fuji.
p.7 #12 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Scott, I may completely agree with you later this week when I get the camera. I feel like I know what it is, and what it can't do and I'm OK with it. But who knows?
p.7 #13 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Ditchell wrote:
I'm actually in the process of doing this, where I sold one of my X series and am trading it for a GFX 50s. I watched a million videos about how it handles, how slow it is, bad AF etc. And even more about how it's not a whole lot different to full frame ( I sold a perfectly great Sony A7 III to get into Fuji a few months ago). So I spent a few days thinking maybe I should just buy a Canon or Nikon or go back to Sony with an old A7R for my landscape, architecture, stuff-not-moving work.
And then it hit me- I don't care if it's a sluggish chunky brick, it's a Fuji. It's got film sims, it's got dials, it's going to feel "good" to me. I've shot all the brands over the last couple of decades, and even if it's demonstrably less powerful, I already know which one I'm going to enjoy picking up to shoot.
You don’t need the latest, greatest, all bells and whistles do-it-all with ease camera to make stellar images. Plus there is a lot of joy to be derived from using less-than excellent tools to create a work of art. Photography is a doing and learning activity — I actually got bored by how well my Nikon Z9 did everything. Perhaps that makes me a luddite, but I am rediscovering a joy in my photography I haven’t felt in a long time by using gear that requires me to think about what I’m doing to make it work. YMMV
p.7 #14 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Ditchell wrote:
Scott, I may completely agree with you later this week when I get the camera. I feel like I know what it is, and what it can't do and I'm OK with it. But who knows?
The more I shoot with the combo of XT5 and Gfx50S, the more I get used to the difference and enjoy it. Yes, the XT5 shows the improvements Fuji has made and it logs the miles backpacking. The Gfx shows that optical quality still beats slick electronics at some uses. But it is a brick. Despite the size differences, the controls are pretty similar, more so than with the 100S. If I do upgrade to the 100S at some point, I'll probably switch the XT5 controls to match, using the button dials for ISO and shutter to match the 100. But that's something I'm not really looking forward to doing. As for film sims, there's I guess two that the 50S doesn't have, neither of which I've bothered to use on the XT5. Have fun with the 50S, I'm sure you will.
p.7 #15 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
Ditchell wrote:
Scott, I may completely agree with you later this week when I get the camera. I feel like I know what it is, and what it can't do and I'm OK with it. But who knows?
It's 100% about how you use it. If you were a single shot tripod shooter for instance, you'd never tell a difference between any camera!
p.7 #16 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
gear-nut wrote:
Just wondering if the OP @justandyphoto@ has reached a decision for their needs?
Appreciate the question! I have a GFX 100S and the 63mm f/2.8 and 32-64mm f/4 lenses right now and I continue to be blown away by the results that I can get out of the series. I'm still trying to make a decision between two Fujifilm X bodies and my "ideal" lens kit versus shooting with one X series camera and one GFX camera. For the X series, I would carry mostly smaller primes an on the GFX side I would do the wide angle zoom, mid-range zoom and probably a fast prime for portraits. My money goes further with just sticking to the X system but it's hard to argue with the image quality out of GFX, even if I do lose a little in speed and versatility.
p.7 #17 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
justandyphoto wrote:
Appreciate the question! I have a GFX 100S and the 63mm f/2.8 and 32-64mm f/4 lenses right now and I continue to be blown away by the results that I can get out of the series. I'm still trying to make a decision between two Fujifilm X bodies and my "ideal" lens kit versus shooting with one X series camera and one GFX camera. For the X series, I would carry mostly smaller primes an on the GFX side I would do the wide angle zoom, mid-range zoom and probably a fast prime for portraits. My money goes further with just sticking to the X system but it's hard to argue with the image quality out of GFX, even if I do lose a little in speed and versatility....Show more →
Okay, great to hear! Yes, the GFX is pretty incredible. My own experience was being similarly impressed, even coming from the best 45MP files I could get from Nikon and their top glass -- and before I get flamed, don't get me wrong, the Nikon files were awesome, it's just that the GFX 100s files are notably (meaning pretty significantly for me) more impressive.
I've just entered into a small (minimalist?) XT5 kit specifically for travel, but I'm stuck wondering the reverse -- might the GFX be worth traveling with, even considering the weight penalty, just for those incredible files? I love using the GFX camera and the lenses -- and my primes and zooms are simply outstanding; I find my 20-35, 32-64 and 45-100 are essentially as good as primes in those ranges. I could pretty easily carry one body with the 20-35, 45-100 and 50 pancake and be done.
p.7 #18 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
justandyphoto wrote:
but it's hard to argue with the image quality out of GFX, even if I do lose a little in speed and versatility.
Its hard to put the genie back in the bottle
I'm curious why you feel (as a hobbyist) the need for two of the X bodies if you go that route? Just to be able to swap lenses quickly? I have carried my XT5 when shooting the Gfx on a tripod when I wanted a "free" camera to point whatever way. But I've never felt the need to have two X bodies, although that's probably because I'm always trying to limit my kit.
p.7 #19 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
SGinNorcal wrote:
I'm curious why you feel (as a hobbyist) the need for two of the X bodies if you go that route? Just to be able to swap lenses quickly? I have carried my XT5 when shooting the Gfx on a tripod when I wanted a "free" camera to point whatever way. But I've never felt the need to have two X bodies, although that's probably because I'm always trying to limit my kit.
What I was trying to say is that I will either have a two camera X kit OR a GFX body and one X series camera to shoot with smaller lenses, use for everyday carry and access types of shooting that I don't have lenses for on the GFX. I'm leaning toward one GFX body and the X-Pro3. I will probably use the X series for longer zooms like the XF 70-300mm and for smaller primes that are fun to shoot with on a day-to-day basis. Only way I might keep two X bodies in this case is if one of them is in the X100 series just for fun.
p.7 #20 · Worth it to Upgrade from Fujifilm X to GFX Series for Landscapes?
justandyphoto wrote:
What I was trying to say is that I will either have a two camera X kit OR a GFX body and one X series camera to shoot with smaller lenses,
Gotcha, that's what I'm doing at the moment. I was recently at the beach with the GFX on a tripod waiting on the sunset while taking shots of my dogs playing with my XT5/50f2.
