p.29 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Key aspect of my post was “enough to matter to me”. It’s a lot of money for a perhaps marginal improvement - like many things in photography, it’s worth it to some and not others. Similarly, the shutter speeds that are niche to you may matter more to others.
Also, versatility is about more than just raw image quality.
p.29 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
itai195 wrote:
It’s really more akin to the M in that way- powerful tool if it does what you need, and definitely not for every use or everyone.
+1 ^
M + 28 + AF + bigger sensor.
Without getting back into a debate (just the facts as it exists), the GFX 100RF adds EVF (replacing RF), adds AF, adds 16 bit, adds larger MP / sensor area. Retains non-stabilized sensor.
The main things I see as a downgrade with regard to the fixed lens is the obvious focal length constraint, the f/4 and the distortion compared to an M 28mm lens (or in my recent outing, 24mm). Manual focus experience may be a downgrade, also.
Curious to understand if one zone focuses with it by first AF'ing a distance, and then just leaving it there / switch to MF, or is there some kind of distance scale for manual focus in the EVF (since there are no DOF marks on the lens).
Using the 100RF crop modes can likely mitigate the distortion, bringing it closer to the native 35mm focal length, if either you crop to get central portion, or crop to have a format change.
p.29 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Curious to understand if one zone focuses with it by first AF'ing a distance, and then just leaving it there / switch to MF, or is there some kind of distance scale for manual focus in the EVF (since there are no DOF marks on the lens).
I have to believe it will have the standard Fuji distance scale on the LCD and EVF, where it shows not only the focus distance (with appropriate meter and feet markings) and the DoF focus zone markers (either film format or pixel format) that every X camera has.
I'm also assuming it has the same focus throw as the X100 series and many of Fuji's other XF lenses, which is approximately the same as the classic M rangefinder focus throw, when set on "linear" mode. If you set the focus distance to 1.2 meters, for example, and imagine there is a focus tab pointing straight down, yes, infinity will be rotating that imaginary tab to 7 o'clock and 0.7 meters to 4 o'clock (or roughly thereabouts).
It also ought to have the proper back button AF override, where you can set it to center point AF when you hit a custom button, so in manual mode, you can use that as a quick rangefinder-style AF and recompose. Faster than anyone can align a manual rangefinder.
I've long shot the X100F and V, and X-E4 like I shoot my M cameras this way. I don't think this functionality is an accident.
Fuji messed up when they made the X-Pro 3, by forcing us to use the EVF/OVF (or open up the LCD) in order to manually set our focus distance and zones with their XF lenses lacking a manual clutch. I know I am in a very small minority who still zone focuses with their X cameras, but I hope they go back to a regular back (or tilting) LCD for their next X-Pro.
p.29 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jjcha wrote:
I've long shot the X100F and V, and X-E4 like I shoot my M cameras this way. I don't think this functionality is an accident..
Gotcha, thanks.
The X-Pro 3 was my last camera before I began the switch to Leica's ... I used it with an Elmarit M 28/2.8. Then, decided that I should find out what Leica glass on a Leica body, is like. It's been Leica forward (and a small stint with Hassy). Every time I've looked at Fuji GFX it's been like handling a brick, to me.
With the advent of the GFX 100RF, I don't think I'd be interested in the newer X-Pro, but the 100RF seems like it is a bit more like the X-Pro (body size), as it seems to be only marginally taller, slightly less wide ... yet double the sensor size. Or, going the other way, the X-Pro isn't much smaller in size, but is half the sensor size. Of course, ILC vs. fixed lens, though.
By that, I mean ... I liked the form factor of the X-Pro 3 in my hand well enough, but a slightly larger version of it might fit my hand even better.
p.29 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Curious to understand if one zone focuses with it by first AF'ing a distance, and then just leaving it there / switch to MF, or is there some kind of distance scale for manual focus in the EVF (since there are no DOF marks on the lens).
Yeah, the Fuji camera OS has had the distance scale in MF mode in all cameras bodies I've had. Standard feature.
p.29 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Curious to understand if one zone focuses with it by first AF'ing a distance, and then just leaving it there / switch to MF, or is there some kind of distance scale for manual focus in the EVF (since there are no DOF marks on the lens).
I do it all the time when doing street photography with Coolpic A. It is 28mm eqv 18mm cropped sensor camera. I have tried the same with X100V, but it does not work equally well (or needs more stopping down) because of longer focal length.
RustyBug wrote:
Using the 100RF crop modes can likely mitigate the distortion, bringing it closer to the native 35mm focal length, if either you crop to get central portion, or crop to have a format change.
I checked the raw files. GFX100RF lens has considerable barrel distortion but is nice and round and corrects perfectly with lens profile.
p.29 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
I do it all the time when doing street photography with Coolpic A. It is 28mm eqv 18mm cropped sensor camera. I have tried the same with X100V, but it does not work equally well (or needs more stopping down) because of longer focal length.
I checked the raw files. GFX100RF lens has considerable barrel distortion but is nice and round and corrects perfectly with lens profile.
p.29 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
The main issue with starting with a lens that's creeping into wide angle territory (28 equiv) is that crop-zooming isn't getting rid of wide angle distortion, straightening lines, making faces more flattering for portraits, etc.
If you don't "like" 28mm or feel you'd be zoomed in the majority of the time, there are much better solutions to be had.
p.29 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Curious to understand if one zone focuses with it by first AF'ing a distance, and then just leaving it there / switch to MF, or is there some kind of distance scale for manual focus in the EVF (since there are no DOF marks on the lens).
Zone focusing evolved in an era when cameras did not AF and during which it was extremely uncommon to make very large prints from (mostly) 35mm originals. The idea was that the focus was “close enough” — coupled with a somewhat small aperture in to ensure that the DOF wasn’t too small.
An extension of the approach was to learn the focus ring well enough that you could come pretty close fairly quickly by mentally estimating the distance and then turning the focus ring without looking at it.
But here we are talking about a camera whose main virtue is supposed to be its ability to capture very sharp, high resolution i images on that 102MP sensor. (While shooting handheld, but I digress.)
If you are going to manually zone focus, you will most often not get the ideal focus that takes advantage of such a camera’s potential to produce sharp, high resolution images. And if you are then going to rely on cropping to get a narrower angle of view than that provided by the rather wide 35mm (28mm FF angle-of-view equivalent) focal length you will compromise its sharpness potential even more.
That was fine with a smallish print from a 35mm film camera back when AF didn’t exist, but is that what 102MP sensor miniMF cameras exist for today?
(The remaining arguments, I suppose, are that the slight potential improvement in gradient “smoothness” and Noise/DR are substantial enough.)
p.29 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I think people who use shutter speed as an ISO crutch in either direction have lost the plot.
Shutter speed is a crucial aesthetic choice for photography, not a value to just float willy nilly, or be compromised just to get less noise. It is THE way to imply motion in a photo, and if you feel your camera has a limitation that will prevent you from using shutter speed in this intentional way, consider another camera.
It's like people who shoot m4/3 and shoot at 1 second to keep the ISO low.
True enough if intentional motion blur is a key part of your style, but realistically, freezing all motion will always be the default choice. It's easy to say "then just set the shutter as fast as needed and let auto-ISO fly", but I'd argue people tend to underestimate the impact of high ISO on image quality.
Sure, modern sensors and denoising algorithms are good enough for noise to be a mostly non-issue, but ISO above 1600 or so also degrades the colors and tonality in a noticeable way. I can easily see it even in noise-free photos.
Point is, minimizing shutter-speed is important, and ISO performance is no substitute for good hand-holding technique.
p.29 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Liked this a lot. Good summation of all the appeal I've been espousing since the beginning.
But those closer shots of the people at f/4 were cringe, IMO. Based on the voiceover, it sounded like the photographer agreed. I would stop this camera down to f/5.6 or f/8 even for headshots and just own the environmental portrait thing. For me, the only use for f/4 with this camera would be in low light (duh) or for shooting near MFD where some separation is actually possible.
Given how large the 645 and 67 fixed lens Fuji film cameras were, I think most of us would have been fine with a lens twice the size if it had f/2.8. Or I would have preferred a hit to IQ and gotten the iPhone quality lens from the 100VI just to get the small size plus the wide aperture.
If there's a bright side here for me, it's that their philosophy with the 100RF leaves room for a 100R, hopefully with the 100RF's top dials and not the 100S PASM setup.
p.29 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
Zone focusing evolved in an era when cameras did not AF and during which it was extremely uncommon to make very large prints from (mostly) 35mm originals. The idea was that the focus was “close enough” — coupled with a somewhat small aperture in to ensure that the DOF wasn’t too small.
An extension of the approach was to learn the focus ring well enough that you could come pretty close fairly quickly by mentally estimating the distance and then turning the focus ring without looking at it.
But here we are talking about a camera whose main virtue is supposed to be its ability to capture very sharp, high resolution i images on that 102MP sensor. (While shooting handheld, but I digress.)
If you are going to manually zone focus, you will most often not get the ideal focus that takes advantage of such a camera’s potential to produce sharp, high resolution images. And if you are then going to rely on cropping to get a narrower angle of view than that provided by the rather wide 35mm (28mm FF angle-of-view equivalent) focal length you will compromise its sharpness potential even more.
That was fine with a smallish print from a 35mm film camera back when AF didn’t exist, but is that what 102MP sensor miniMF cameras exist for today?
(The remaining arguments, I suppose, are that the slight potential improvement in gradient “smoothness” and Noise/DR are substantial enough.)...Show more →
Yes, I understand what zone focusing is.
There's more than one way to use it ... I tend to use it as an "almost, but not quite" hyperfocal sometimes. And, as to the Days of Yore vs. techno-current, I typically recognize that the tolerance relative to CoC, etc. is probably 2/3 - 1/2 that of the lens markings to my temperament. Mostly, I just want to know if I'm setting it more oriented toward the front or back of my estimated plane. e.g. I might pre-focus on something that is 15 feet away, but it is slightly behind my target "space". So, I adjust my zone to be forward of that object by an offset of 3 feet, then I'm reasonably good in the 12 foot zone (conceptual).
p.29 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I have no skin in this game because a 100 RF is not for me, but leaving aside all the other interesting pros and cons in the thread, I think Fuji's big win here is the weight.
At 735 grams, that's a really light medium format camera! My 100S with my 43mm lens (the lightest, smallest lens I can put on the camera) clocks in at double that -- 1,416 grams. The 100 RF is not pocketable, but it's definitely easily packable. I have to think twice about packing my 100S and 43mm "just in case".
p.29 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
Yes, I understand what zone focusing is.
There's more than one way to use it ... I tend to use it as an "almost, but not quite" hyperfocal sometimes. And, as to the Days of Yore vs. techno-current, I typically recognize that the tolerance relative to CoC, etc. is probably 2/3 - 1/2 that of the lens markings to my temperament. Mostly, I just want to know if I'm setting it more oriented toward the front or back of my estimated plane. e.g. I might pre-focus on something that is 15 feet away, but it is slightly behind my target "space". So, I adjust my zone to be forward of that object by an offset of 3 feet, then I'm reasonably good in the 12 foot zone (conceptual)....Show more →
There's nothing wrong with AF'ing it either if you want you still have to manage your SS and ISO. If people wan to zone focus they will.
p.29 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rdeloe wrote:
I have no skin in this game because a 100 RF is not for me, but leaving aside all the other interesting pros and cons in the thread, I think Fuji's big win here is the weight.
At 735 grams, that's a really light medium format camera! My 100S with my 43mm lens (the lightest, smallest lens I can put on the camera) clocks in at double that -- 1,416 grams. The 100 RF is not pocketable, but it's definitely easily packable. I have to think twice about packing my 100S and 43mm "just in case".
https://i.ibb.co/Xf2nxmd7/R-de-Loe-T2-B9030-2.jpg
Yes, the size is what really makes this camera. Putting a faster lens on it would negate it’s biggest feature…it’s compact size.
p.29 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rbf_ wrote:
There's nothing wrong with AF'ing it either if you want you still have to manage your SS and ISO. If people wan to zone focus they will.
Understood.
Sometimes I want my plane of focus "in space" ... with no object for AF to latch on to. So, I'll grab (manual or AF) focus or a "nearest object" ... then offset it. Having a reference point is helpful, since that nearest object is sometimes closer / farther than my desired plane. I just need to nudge if forward or back, accordingly. Helps to know if I'm nudging within vs. beyond my reference point.
And yes, AF isn't "off the table", just wondering how the MF / Zone experience is with it.
p.29 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
rdeloe wrote:
I have no skin in this game because a 100 RF is not for me, but leaving aside all the other interesting pros and cons in the thread, I think Fuji's big win here is the weight.
At 735 grams, that's a really light medium format camera! My 100S with my 43mm lens (the lightest, smallest lens I can put on the camera) clocks in at double that -- 1,416 grams. The 100 RF is not pocketable, but it's definitely easily packable. I have to think twice about packing my 100S and 43mm "just in case".
https://i.ibb.co/Xf2nxmd7/R-de-Loe-T2-B9030-2.jpg
Totally agree. My smallest GFX kit is 100S + GF50 and while I do and have take it out in a walk around role the RF takes packability to another level. More on the APSC sized level. That's why it's so damn interesting.
