p.31 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chez wrote:
Exactly right. Putting a faster lens onto the RF and adding ibis would just bulk out the camera…why not just go the GFX100s II route. The beauty of the RF is its compact size that I would be willing to carry all day long.
Too true. I've never warmed to the Leica Q for that very reason. Side by side, the RF is much more slender assuming you don't attach the filter adapter and hood. Hopefully they'll be an aftermarket slim option.
p.31 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
johnvanr wrote:
Just spoke with a salesperson at a store here in Vienna, Austria, and he said pre-orders are high for this camera.
Salesperson in my camerahop told the same. Not a surprise knowing the huge social media campaign Fujifilm has organised around the launch of this camera. I am not critisising, I like watching Youtube
I am genuinely interrested in how well GFX100RF will do. It is also a camera I want to have. Or at least I wish I could use for a few weeks. In the end of the day most of the technical criticisms presented in this discussion have very little to do with how desirable GFX100RF is. We know it takes nice pictures and it is fun to use, that is enough. Who cares about distortion, no IBIS or f/4
p.31 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
The more I read from threads and articles, the more I want to applaud Fuji's design team for what appears to be them sticking to their key design goals. I assume that was the smallest possible Gfx that could still be useful. All my own conjecture but I'm guessing the cost savings of the lens and no IBIS was very small, certainly a small percentage of cost on this camera and not a reason for that ommission. Good job design team! Too often, things get watered down trying to appeal to everyone and winding up with a product with no clear direction. Fuji can easily do another model, call it the Sport model, that is an updated 50r, with 100mp, IBIS and a fixed 2.8, enhanced weather proofing, and an accessory waterproof housing. That would be awesome in a completely different direction and amazing choices for consumers.
For me, this thread has had me take out the 50S a few times with the 20-35. Its a killer combo with so many "goods", that I don't dwell on lack of stab. Maybe I don't push the limits of light much I guess. In certain situation with huge, natural color saturation and contrast, I think the 50S can give a slightly more pleasing rendering over the 100S. If I had to pick one (and I should), it would be the 100S. But I just don't see the giant improvement so many of you do. I think the 100RF will enjoy huge success. I hope it motivates Fuji to keep on being weird, introduce more niche products please!
p.31 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
I guess I was mistaken then about the 45-100. It’s quite an amazing lens. I have had the system for just 3 months and have yet to completely put it through its paces.
I agree that not having IBIS in the GFX100RF is not ideal, but considering the latitude of the sensor, I plan on using higher ISOs in those situations. For the rest, I have the GFX100S II.
On the other hand, the slim profile with the built in lens opens another dimension of photography that is really under appreciated. That’s why it has drawn so much interest from myself and others.
Having IBIS and a faster lens in a fixed lens camera would mean a larger camera, in which case I would stick to my GFX100S II. My use case is that the GFX100RF would be a companion to the GFX100S II.
I think your concerns are legitimate but you are looking at it from either a full frame (Leica Q series) or APSC (100V1) point of view. Engineering IBIS and a fast lens to cover the 44*33 sensor in a compact body is extremely challenging. The GFX100RF is a great compromise in my opinion. ...Show more →
I'm looking at it from a GFX point of view because that is what i have been shooting for 6 years.
p.31 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
We know it takes nice pictures and it is fun to use, that is enough. Who cares about distortion, no IBIS or f/4
The majority of people in this thread would struggle to maximize the potential of the RF whether it had better technical specs or not, and most of them are the ones whining the loudest
p.31 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
I'm looking at it from a GFX point of view because that is what i have been shooting for 6 years.
Well from the GFX point of view, it is the most compact, lightest GFX camera out there. If ibis or a faster lens is a requirement, this camera is not for you…there are other ways to meet those criteria.
p.31 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
I'm looking at it from a GFX point of view because that is what i have been shooting for 6 years.
Sorry, that wasn’t meant to offend.
I was just thinking aloud. If I were to design a compact mini MF (44*33 sensor) camera, how would I achieve it.
Looking at the problem logically, covering that large a sensor with a fast lens and IBIS would result in a camera that wouldn’t be that different in size from the GFX100S II.
So, to achieve a truly portable compact mini MF camera, I would start with the lens first. Mirrorless format is amenable to compact size due to the technology inherently involved. It’s the lens with such a large coverage that would need outside the box thinking.
I figured that’s the decisions that Fujifilm had to make because I would. It wouldn’t make sense for them to leave out technologies like IBIS to make a “quirky” camera. They would not deliberately handicap their beautiful designed and elegant camera with a slow lens.
This camera would appeal to seasoned photographers with knowledge and experience to appreciate the effort and design to package this in such a small body.
That’s just the scientist background in me figures. And really anyone who sits down with a blank piece of paper to design something new with a constraint that it should be compact would do.
p.31 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
If Fuji put a f2.8 lens in I think that would have satisfied a lot of people and IBS would even seem less needed. The lens would probably only be about the size of the current one with lens hood.
p.31 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
fotografur wrote:
If Fuji put a f2.8 lens in I think that would have satisfied a lot of people and IBS would even seem less needed. The lens would probably only be about the size of the current one with lens hood.
I think the existing camera will also satisfy a lot of people…maybe a different set of people that are ok with a bulkier / heavier f2.8 lens. I know I would bow out if the weight would be over 1000gm.
p.31 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
fotografur wrote:
If Fuji put a f2.8 lens in I think that would have satisfied a lot of people and IBS would even seem less needed. The lens would probably only be about the size of the current one with lens hood.
So, not being an optical engineer, I feel that having a faster lens probably has some size compromises that would take away from a compact camera.
I would conjecture that they would probably have multiple engineering prototypes that they investigated. But that’s just a guess.
Going back to IBIS - for a successful system, the lens coverage has to be quite a bit larger than the sensor to be effective. So that’s probably why IBIS was not in the production model. I figured the lens would have to be larger, both the part inside the body as well as outside.
Those are just guesses based on how much effort and expense they put into quality materials to build the GFX100RF. I can’t imagine why they would compromise on anything else.
p.31 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I think Fujifilm could have articulated this a lot better than they did. Then they would not get so many questions.
But then again engineers and scientists that have worked in the field have a hard time communicating what thought processes went into their design. They figure that people understand the logic that went into it.
I have seen this at scientific meetings too, where other scientists are perplexed at new ideas from their colleagues. Sometimes you have to spell it out.
p.31 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I think Fujifilm could have articulated this a lot better than they did. Then they would not get so many questions.
But then again engineers and scientists that have worked in the field have a hard time communicating what thought processes went into their design. They figure that people understand the logic that went into it.
I have seen this at scientific meetings too, where other scientists are perplexed at new ideas from their colleagues. Sometimes you have to spell it out.
It’s not the engineers role to describe the camera to the masses…there are huge marketing departments just for this purpose.
p.31 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I wonder what feedback Fuji would get at the launch of the Fuji 690 if there were Internet forums back then. I mention the 690, because I think it and the other similar Fuji mf film cameras, embodies the ethos of what Fuji did then and are attempting to do with the rf
p.31 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
robsonj wrote:
I wonder what feedback Fuji would get at the launch of the Fuji 690 if there were Internet forums back then. I mention the 690, because I think it and the other similar Fuji mf film cameras, embodies the ethos of what Fuji did then and are attempting to do with the rf
+1 ... waiting to see them bring a "folding" lens on a digital MF body. That'd rock some boats for folks.
p.31 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
I think Fujifilm could have articulated this a lot better than they did. Then they would not get so many questions.
But then again engineers and scientists that have worked in the field have a hard time communicating what thought processes went into their design. They figure that people understand the logic that went into it.
I have seen this at scientific meetings too, where other scientists are perplexed at new ideas from their colleagues. Sometimes you have to spell it out.
I think Fujifilm has has communicated very about GFX100RF in series of short videos. This forum is just not their target audience
I just opened Youtube when drinking my morning coffee. The first video (uploaded less than hour ago) was this. Not greatest art in the world but entertaining and caputures the idea of GFX100RF. I agree with many points John ST makes on photography. Worse videos have been linked here.
p.31 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I feel like I would be in the target market, because the overall feature set, particularly the crop dial appeals to me. But the price is just too much for me, despite having a bit of spare cash. A $A 8500 camera with an f4 lens, which will struggle to get subject isolation, is just too expensive. If they made an APS-C version I'd probably bite.
