fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              24              26              86       87       end
  

Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread

  
 
RoamingScott
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


So getting the Z 85/1.2 in hand really demonstrates what a winning combo the 100S + GF110 combo is. Yes, the Z is more AF capable, but in some early tests, the GF AF-S accuracy and fidelity is demonstrably better.

One more checkmark for cancelling my preorder and sticking with my GFX kit.



Mar 28, 2025 at 01:28 PM
Lukacs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tsdevine wrote:
I preordered the camera and then cancelled. My desire was primarily founded on wanting to try a medium format camera. My use case is predominantly landscape shooting, and I love the 28mm FL, so this camera definitely resonated with me.

But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this camera may not be the best vehicle for me to dabble with medium format. If it turns out I really like shooting medium format, I really can't take it any further due to the fixed lens. So I would end up having to buy another body and
...Show more

I don't want building another expensive system. I like the RF because of the form factor, lens, size... the overall package. I'm perfectly fine for landscape with my A7RV 20 1.8G, 35GM, 65 APO. MF can't do significant better in IQ (not that huge difference in sensor size), but far less versatile than Sony.



Mar 28, 2025 at 01:31 PM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread



Wouldn't argue with your perspective. I'm happy with my current system as well, but I've always been curious to try medium format.

I'll be able to comment personally on how I find medium format compared to my existing system once I get to put it through its paces. I haven't really formulated any real objective opinion since I don't have any first hand experience. I've always been more of a try it first hand then formulate an opinion type guy. I mean I look at what others have shot, look at test, etc. But I find it extremely hard to have any firm opinion on merits without personal experience.

Lukacs wrote:
I don't want building another expensive system. I like the RF because of the form factor, lens, size... the overall package. I'm perfectly fine for landscape with my A7RV 20 1.8G, 35GM, 65 APO. MF can't do significant better in IQ (not that huge difference in sensor size), but far less versatile than Sony.





Mar 28, 2025 at 01:58 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tsdevine wrote:
I preordered the camera and then cancelled. My desire was primarily founded on wanting to try a medium format camera. My use case is predominantly landscape shooting, and I love the 28mm FL, so this camera definitely resonated with me.

But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this camera may not be the best vehicle for me to dabble with medium format. If it turns out I really like shooting medium format, I really can't take it any further due to the fixed lens. So I would end up having to buy another body and
...Show more

If you really want to see the potential of the GFX system at 100mp, I would get another lens in addition to the 35-70. It's ok at f/8. IMO it brings down the IQ to the level of full frame at wider apertures.



Mar 28, 2025 at 02:54 PM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


highdesertmesa wrote:
If you really want to see the potential of the GFX system at 100mp, I would get another lens in addition to the 35-70. It's ok at f/8. IMO it brings down the IQ to the level of full frame at wider apertures.


Baby steps. I'm fine with f/8+ for my use cases. And I did research the 35-70 vs the 32-64, knowing I'd be stopped down a bit. Maybe if I had caught the $500 off on the 32-64 I would have considered it more.

At least I could add the 20-35 or 45-100 later. With the RF I would be adding a camera along with the lenses.




Mar 28, 2025 at 03:06 PM
Erich6_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


jjcha wrote:
Everyone is different and have different use cases. I can only speak for myself.

I've said most of this elsewhere, but the more I think about it, the more I think I've come to understand why I'm buying this camera.

I own a Bronica SQ, 6x6 medium format camera.

I'm no good with the square format. I've tried, it's just hard for me (I keep trying though). One amazing thing though is the freedom to crop any aspect ratio afterwards and maintain tons of surface area for high quality prints.

You can go to 4:3, 16:9, 4:5, landscape to portrait without even rotating
...Show more

This matches my thinking which is why I’m sticking with my preorder. I’m only looking for the full resolution for wide-angle shots and I get all the other X100 benefits at other focal lengths but at higher resolution.

I agree with those looking past GFX100RF that are looking for MF resolution at longer focal lengths. The right move for that is a MILC body with various lenses.



Mar 28, 2025 at 06:01 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


jjcha wrote:
I'm looking forward to the freedom of cropping digital. That *is* the advantage of medium format, at least for me.


+1 for format

I mentioned the 16 bit color, etc. The 4:3 starting point vs. 3:2 starting point is another aspect for me.



Imo, there are three primary reasons to crop (not in any order).

1. Magnification

I think this is the first thing that a lot of folks think about, as a "digital zoom". I also think it is the one that is the most controversial / contentious among folks. While this is convenient, I don't get "too aggressive" with this. I do appreciate glass that holds up to 300% crops, but in reality my target zone is preferred to crop under 2X, closer to 1.5X is my "no sweat" comfort zone.

2. Rotational / Keystoning / Distortion corrections and adjustments

This is one that comes in useful, particularly when using wides or lenses utilizing computational correction. Also, if you need to shoot skewed for whatever reason. Having pixels left after getting things lined up is nice. Starting with marginal MP and dropping from there can be a bit of a bummer, at times. Nice to have a few for wiggle room.

3. Format

Shooting a native format of 3:2 and wanting a 4:3 or a 16:9 or whatever else you may desire means you're tossing away a few on one of the sides. Having some extra to allow for format changes is nice.

That's kinda the "Big 3" that I see having use for the extra pixels. However, in addition to that (for me), I specifically like a 4:3 format for a lot of things that I'd want the 16 bit color for (i.e. matching benefits). So, with the MF already at 4:3 ... fewer (i.e. none, if framed right) pixels needed to be tossed. My experience with the X1D II at 50MP was fine in this regard.





Mar 28, 2025 at 06:41 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


So, what folks are saying is that it is a fixed lens miniMF camera, a fixed lens FF camera, a fixed lens APS-C camera, and a fixed lens. MFT camera?


Mar 28, 2025 at 07:18 PM
rbf_
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


gdanmitchell wrote:
So, what folks are saying is that it is a fixed lens miniMF camera, a fixed lens FF camera, a fixed lens APS-C camera, and a fixed lens. MFT camera?


I think I'd crop just about the same amount as I do now. Are people really saying straight up just, "I don't crop."? Now if it was the only camera I had with me I might crop a little more, the same as when I'm out with only one lens on an ILC. But when I had a fixed lens camera alongside an ILC system in the past (Sigma DP2 Merrill) I tended to use it where I felt the focal length was appropriate. So...



Mar 28, 2025 at 07:49 PM
A74me
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


gdanmitchell wrote:
So, what folks are saying is that it is a fixed lens miniMF camera, a fixed lens FF camera, a fixed lens APS-C camera, and a fixed lens. MFT camera?


its just a digital zoom point and shoot camera. give me a 2x smaller apsc camera with 30 1.4 lens class leading AF any day of the week.



Mar 29, 2025 at 01:57 AM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Greg7579
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


highdesertmesa wrote:
If you really want to see the potential of the GFX system at 100mp, I would get another lens in addition to the 35-70. It's ok at f/8. IMO it brings down the IQ to the level of full frame at wider apertures.


I agree with that advice, but I will say what is already well known in GFX shooting circles.... It is a great walking around daylight lens for shooting at F8. At F8, the lens is excellent and holds up well with the bigger and more expensive GF lenses - again, at F8. But having that small, inexpensive, light MF lens that covers the very popular and much needed 35-70 (28-55 FF equivalent) is a very power thing. I love hat lens - again, at F8 and in nice light. At first, I didn't want that lens because I'm a lens snob and I thought it was too kit lens like. But I was wrong. Jim made me get it and I've been happy ever since.



Mar 29, 2025 at 02:47 AM
SrMi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


RustyBug wrote:
+1 for format

I mentioned the 16 bit color, etc. The 4:3 starting point vs. 3:2 starting point is another aspect for me.


The advantage of 16 vs. 14 bits for color is a myth. In theory, 16 bits could help with dynamic range, but they do not do much for a sensor size of 44x33. Most use 14 bits instead.



Mar 29, 2025 at 02:52 AM
Greg7579
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tsdevine wrote:
MF can't do significant better in IQ (not that huge difference in sensor size), but far less versatile than Sony.


I disagree with that take, Sir. For the 1000th time in my MF shooting career I will correct an OP on a camera equipment forum that mistakenly claims that the MF sensor that GFX and Hassy use is not "that much bigger" than our beloved FF sensor size.

That is incorrect. It is a lot bigger. It is 70% bigger and size matters.

Why else would we spend so much money on GFX gear?

I know why. It is because the IQ / image fidelity is much better. How much better? A lot better. And the glass is the best there is.

So that leads me to disagree with your statement that the IQ is not significantly better. It is. Oh yes indeed it is.

Now if you really believe what you are saying and really can't see it, then I suggest that you are lucky. Save your money and buy more Sony gear because GFX would be a total waste of your time, effort and money.

I do agree with you that GFX is less versatile than FF for some things sports, racing, BIF & wildlife, but it is much better for what it is good at, which is a lot.

Tools for the job at hand.

Like I always say, if you don't need or appreciate the significant gains in res and IQ or if you don't want to (or can't) spend the big bucks, then don't get GFX or Hassy. Stay away from it because it can be a bit like heroin (but won't kill you). Instead, shoot FF or Fuji X and be happy. Those systems are great.



Mar 29, 2025 at 03:04 AM
tuomkok
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


SrMi wrote:
The advantage of 16 vs. 14 bits for color is a myth. In theory, 16 bits could help with dynamic range, but they do not do much for a sensor size of 44x33. Most use 14 bits instead.


Please tell use more about why the theory is not valid in the case of GFX.




Mar 29, 2025 at 03:36 AM
SrMi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tuomkok wrote:
Please tell use more about why the theory is not valid in the case of GFX.



It is not valid for any camera, not only GFX. 16 or 14 bits have so many more colors than we can discern.

Here is an article from DPR:

Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture



Mar 29, 2025 at 04:28 AM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


Greg7579 wrote:
I disagree with that take, Sir. For the 1000th time in my MF shooting career I will correct an OP on a camera equipment forum that mistakenly claims that the MF sensor that GFX and Hassy use is not "that much bigger" than our beloved FF sensor size.

That is incorrect. It is a lot bigger. It is 70% bigger and size matters.

Why else would we spend so much money on GFX gear?

I know why. It is because the IQ / image fidelity is much better. How much better? A lot better. And the glass is the best
...Show more

I did not say this. You somehow mucked around with the quoting and accidentally made it look like I said that.

For the record, I did not post what this person attributed to me.

Edited on Mar 29, 2025 at 09:31 AM · View previous versions



Mar 29, 2025 at 05:32 AM
rji2goleez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tsdevine wrote:
I preordered the camera and then cancelled. My desire was primarily founded on wanting to try a medium format camera. My use case is predominantly landscape shooting, and I love the 28mm FL, so this camera definitely resonated with me.

But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this camera may not be the best vehicle for me to dabble with medium format. If it turns out I really like shooting medium format, I really can't take it any further due to the fixed lens. So I would end up having to buy another body and
...Show more

This is the same thought process I went through. I also preordered then cancelled on the RF. I'm waiting delivery on the 100S II but I'm getting the 32-64/4 and the 23/4 for primarily landscape work. While I thought about the 35-70, most of what I read pointed me to the 32-64 and overall better IQ. Looking forward to trying this out.



Mar 29, 2025 at 05:48 AM
tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread



I missed the $500 off on the 32-64. If I continue further down this path, the 35-70 will still make a nice smallish lens to carry about.

It gives me a little time to get used to the camera, and decide what route to take in terms of lenses.

rji2goleez wrote:
This is the same thought process I went through. I also preordered then cancelled on the RF. I'm waiting delivery on the 100S II but I'm getting the 32-64/4 and the 23/4 for primarily landscape work. While I thought about the 35-70, most of what I read pointed me to the 32-64 and overall better IQ. Looking forward to trying this out.




Mar 29, 2025 at 05:59 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


SrMi wrote:
It is not valid for any camera, not only GFX. 16 or 14 bits have so many more colors than we can discern.

Here is an article from DPR:

Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture



My personal experience in post dictates otherwise.

I realize the limits of human vision relative to 14 bit vs. 16 bit and the thresholds involved. That is well understood. Where the difference is ... is in the mathematical operations in post.

Simply put (conceptual) ... if the 2 bit difference (i.e. 2^2) is 4X ... and I jack around in post an exposure value of (moderate) 3 stops exposure, I'm now jacking things around by 8X (3^2). Staring at 14 bit and jacking three bits vs. starting at 16 bits and jacking 3 bits, lands me in two different ending points (11 bits vs. 13 bits) of tonality. The more you perform exponential, mathematical operations in post, the more that the extra decimal places (afforded by 16 bit increments) give you for retaining refinement of gradients, etc. as you start performing math, and stacking math operations in post.

If you don't move things much in post ... and relative to the constraints of human vision ... then the threshold of detection difference between 14 bit vs. 16 bit, converted to jpg 8 bit for online viewing etc. is an easy thing to suggest is a "myth". In reality, it is a degree of refinement that is NOT A MYTH. Whether or not the 2 bit diff is meaningful or desirable in application for someone is a personal decision. And for MANY people, the tradeoff for the additional read time necessary to process the additional 4X read isn't a tradeoff that is suitable for their needs. BUT, that still doesn't make it a MYTH.


If it were truly a MYTH ... do you think mfr's would make such a product? Do you think professionals would pay $$$ for such a product, if there was truly no difference. I recognize that for most folks, the NEED for 16 bit isn't something that is really warranted, and that for many things, my 14 bit gear is plenty good. BUT, I also recognize that my 14 bit gear did NOT achieve the same level of gradient colors that I got from the slower readouts associated with the 16 bit files.

Is it possible that if they took a 14 bit read and slowed it down even further that a 14 bit read could get even closer to the 16 bit ... maybe. But, the market isn't calling for that. The market seems tapped out around 1/10 sec readout for FF 14 bit wrt to its temperament. Whereas the 16 bit files are in the 1/6 or 1/3 sec readout to achieve the 2 bit diff. That, and not all 14 bit readouts are equal (e.g. A1 / A9 vs A7RV, etc.). Do the best 14 bit readouts get closer to 16 bit, sure. Does that fit the bill for a lot of folks, sure. Is it equal, nope.

99.99% of folks will do just fine with 14 bit. But, for those who are in situations where the difference is meritable for their work, the difference exists. To suggest otherwise is akin to suggesting that a micrometer is a myth, when you have already have a machinists' rule. It is simply a tool with additional increments of precision, compared to other tools. Do carpenters need a micrometer to measure lumber ... nope. They can build a house just fine without that level of precision. Do engine builders use a tape measure to build high performance engines ... nope. They use high precision instruments that carpenters don't need. Is it then a "myth" that micrometers offer more precision than tape measures. Is it a myth that 16 bit offers more precision than 14 bit?

16 bit is real. Whether or not your work warrants the difference it offers to 14 bit is a personal choice. But, 16 bit is not a MYTH ... even it is beyond the needs of 99.99% of folks. 99.99% of folks aren't engine builders and don't need micrometers, a tape measure or machinist's rule will do just fine. 99.99% of folks don't need 16 bit, and 14 bit will do just fine. Still, 16 bit is not a myth. If you're not sure if you need it ... yeah, then you probably, don't. But, when you know that is what you want, you can't "unknow" the difference.

For most folks, 1/16 or 1/32 or 1/64 inch increments is plenty good. For engine builders, it's gonna be 0.001 or 0.0001 for them. You wouldn't try and tell an engine builder that a micrometer is a myth. Don't try and tell similarly minded photographers that 16 bit is a myth. Does the average Joe need a micrometer or 16 bit, nope. But, some folks aren't looking for average.


YMMV ... carry on.





Mar 29, 2025 at 07:17 AM
SrMi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.25 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread



RustyBug wrote:
My personal experience in post dictates otherwise.

I realize the limits of human vision relative to 14 bit vs. 16 bit and the thresholds involved. That is well understood. Where the difference is ... is in the mathematical operations in post.

Simply put (conceptual) ... if the 2 bit difference (i.e. 2^2) is 4X ... and I jack around in post an exposure value of (moderate) 3 stops exposure, I'm now jacking things around by 8X (3^2). Staring at 14 bit and jacking three bits vs. starting at 16 bits and jacking 3 bits, lands me in two different ending points (11
...Show more

In post you always work in the same bit size, regardless of raw bit size. If you read in 14 bits, the bottom bits are likely zeroed out. If you read in 16 bits, the two bottom bit are random noise and contain no relevant data. I do not see any theoretical benefit, nor have I ever seen any practical benefit.

The 16-bit claim has been considered by knowledgeable people as PR's razzle dazzle 😄.



Mar 29, 2025 at 08:06 AM
1       2       3              24              26              86       87       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              24              26              86       87       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account