p.36 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
Why, yes. They were.
We’ve been hearing for weeks about the quality of the miniMF format and how that would make this camera produce much greater results than the FF and APS-C options.
It is impressive to put a miniMF sensor in such a small and light camera. But what advantages are you gaining from this if the optical quality declines by comparison to a "regular" size camera using the same format?
As to the whiplash, it’s a familiar pattern. I’ve watched some participants in this thread do that dance before — dissing anyone who was less than irrationally exuberant about a newly released camera, only to turn negative on it themselves a couple of months later.
If you listen to them, you might want to balance their point of view with those of some of the more cautious photographers, too… and wait a bit to see how things settle out.
There’s a use case for this camera, but very few people actually fit it....Show more →
Who the hell are you to tell someone about their use case? Anyone that purchases this camera and enjoys shooting with it, no matter what their “use case” is is a winner. What is the “use case” of shooting Leicas that cannot be done with a much cheaper Canon? It’s the enjoyment of shooting that really matters and this camera is all about compact and light which brings enjoyment for many.
Again I need to ask, why such a negative parade of posts ( endless bashing ) from someone that has no interest in the camera?
p.36 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
As I have written many times, there IS a use case for this camera, but it is fairly limited.
You mean travel, landscape, family, environmental portrait, street photography, photojournalism, real estate, architecture, food, product photography. Do you think this is limited use case?
Portrait shot exif shows both as GFX100RF... Also there are too many wide open shots... Night scenes show GFX100RF gets shaky below 1/50sec though the author claims 1/15 can be OK...
p.36 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
matt_h2o wrote:
Having trawled through the entirety of this interminable thread, it’s pretty clear that there is a cohort of people who don’t understand why anyone would ever want anything less than critical sharpness and that this camera isn’t as good for that as the ILC GFX cameras with IBIS.
I really don’t care about critical sharpness. I just want photos that look a certain way, and a camera that I can carry around daily that can deliver those photos.
I looked hard at the Q3 and Q2M but I didn’t really like the ergonomics and size of the camera, and the image quality wasn’t enough of a step up from APS-C to warrant the Leica premium.
The GFX sensor seems to render things in the way that I like - there’s something about the tonality which feels much more refined and nuanced than anything else I’ve shot with. It’s a much more obvious improvement from shooting my XPro3 than the Leica. The GFX tonality gives me the same kind of electric feeling that I get when I see Nadav Kandar’s documentary photos. It’s a beautiful sensor. I didn’t want to lug a tank around every day though in the form of the gfx100sII.
I’m pretty much just going to use the RF to take photos of my wife and my dog and the places we visit. Sure, I could do that with the x100iv. But if I can capture these moments with a sensor that gives me goosebumps, I’d rather do that. It’s expensive, but memories are priceless. So why not do them justice?...Show more →
You have to own a Q to understand how good the Summilux lens is. Looking at online pictures won't do it justice. The images it produces has so much pop. I sold the Q2 because I wanted to focus on the M system. Every time I look through my old Q2 pictures on my monitor, I'm just like damn. It's so special. So I ended up getting the Q3. The leap from Q3 to an APSC is like the Grand Canyon because I owned and sold the X100VI.
From the raw images I have downloaded for the RF, I think it's much closer to the Q, but the Summilux is clearly a better lens. But now you have more options. Do you want that much megapixel? Is f4 ok for you? Size wise it's not significant.
p.36 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
In overall size it’s not a significant change from the Q3. But the shorter lens of the RF will make it more pocketable in a jacket for me. The Q3’s lens makes that impossible.
p.36 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
There is, of course, the option that your standards of quality are low enough where these results are adequate, in which case, I'd re-evaluate if you need a $5000 fixed lens medium format camera. I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't in this category.
As photographers, we all have different standards for image quality.
I've seen it said that when the story is strong, image quality doesn't matter as much, and I suppose that's true.
Like I keep saying, the primary reason I'm buying this camera is for aspect ratio selection and crop-ability in a small EDC package. Not 44x33mm image quality.
But let's talk about image quality for a second.
On one hand, I am more than happy with my GRIII. On the other hand, I know its limitations. I run up against it all the time, and it is annoying.
There are shots where I just push it too damn far and I have to resort to B&W to be able to salvage something. There are other times, where you can see I've pushed it WAY beyond what most people would consider decent. Even though I don't care that much about image quality, I wish I could claw back something a little better.
But enough talk - let's look at some photos and talk about image quality, as it means for me.
Let's start with the most obvious one that at least some of us can agree on (I hope)?
First of all, I often shoot flash. When I shoot flash on the GRIII, I shoot it at ISO1600. This shot would have been better on the GFX100RF, where I probably would have dialed down the ISO to ISO800 and lived with a little less DoF.
This could be a nice gallery sized print, I think. 28mm F11 (equivalent) GRIII. Shot at ~1 meters distance. Zone focused.
p.36 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
This shot was taken not too far from condom-man and the cop. (Apologies for blowing out the highlights on that one - the flash was set to 2 meters, but I knew if I waited til he got closer, I could get a better shot, so I did).
Anyway, on this photo, I saw these ladies about 4 or 5 meters away, changing costume in a little alcove, but still right off the middle of the street, with tens of thousands of people around them (and dozens of photographers). I don't usually take such voyeuristic photos - but it was too good of a shot to resist.
I also had my M10-P with a 50mm F1.2 on me, but obviously, there was no time to stop and focus the range finder on this one.
Anyway, these ladies were too far from me, and this shot is cropped from the GRIII's 28mm equivalent down to something around 40mm equivalent, maybe 50mm? The GRIII starts to fall apart when you crop more than 35mm equivalent.
I could only get so close before I knew I had to take the shot. I'm no "no cropping" purist -- but almost never crop more than just the edges of a shot. This time, I had no choice but to significantly crop.
I dunno if this makes for a decent print. Again, image quality doesn't really matter I guess. Still, I wouldn't mind having more.
This is where the GFX100RF I think really is supposed to shine, from a crop-ability standpoint and, for _my_ standards, better print quality.
GRIII - cropped down to about 40mm - 50mm equivalent. F11 equivalent, zone focused.
p.36 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Ok final shot. Same night. This one - heavily back lit. No flash. These guys were right in front of me, 1 - 1.5 meters away? Not even -- I vaguely recall leaning back (pushing back against the crowd) to get this photo.
I pushed the shadows hard on this one in post. Again, I wouldn't mind at all more shadow recovery. I'm abusing the image quality here and I would love to have some of it back. I have to believe the GFX sensor can do that better than the GRIII.
I need a camera like the GRIII or X100 to take these photos. It needs to be one handed. I need to be able to compose with the LCD - there's a freedom there that's like shooting from the hip. It needs to be fast. It needs to be zone focused.
I need 1/125th. I can't slow the shutter speed more. I need F5.6 (full frame equivalent) for depth of field. I am pushing these natural light shots as hard as I can. I will take what I can from any sensor. The GFX100RF will do these shots better.
Image quality means different things to different people. This is what it means to me.
In addition to the aspect ratio ergonomics (I am so bored with 3:2, I want to change aspect ratio in the field), which is the primary reason I am buying this camera, I certainly don't mind taking advantage of better image quality than the GRIII or X100V.
You wonder why the designers worked so hard to make the GFX100RF so small. Why they didn't fit in IBIS. Why they didn't sacrifice a little for F3.0 maybe.
Well. I can't say I know the answer to that question.
But I guess I'm glad the answer includes a use case for guys like me.
GRIII 28mm F5.6 equivalent. 1/125th. Zone focused at 1.5 meters. Effective ISO likely around 12,800 (given pushed shadows)
p.36 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jjcha wrote:
I have to believe the GFX sensor can do that better than the GRIII.
And, I think this is the crux of the appeal (for some) ... that folks have run into the wall (of some kind to them), and are inclined that the 100RF offers an extension beyond that wall they are experiencing with their other similar form factor ethos. Granted, that form factor is a narrow solar system among the universe of options, but within that context ... I think GRIII or X100 shooters that have "tapped out" on what they are getting from those systems, the 100RF makes for some logical appeal.
If Fuji made a 60MP FF version of the X100, it might be seen as more pragmatic than a 100MP MF camera. But, since Fuji doesn't have an intermediate offering in the FF realm ... APS-C > > > MF is the leap they are offering.
In this manner, those folks are looking at the GFX 100RF as something "more than half full", while users of a GFX, IBIS, ILC with massive glass are looking at the GFX 100RF as something "less than half empty".
Perspective can be a considerable factor to be reckoned with ... depending on where you are coming from vs. where you are trying to get to.
p.36 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Good lord, those photos are awful, completely ruined by the noise. It's funny because usually YT compresses images enough to hide some flaws, but if you watch on a big 4K TV, pause, and go inspect the photos, they are horrid.
Granted man is shooting 1/125 and 1/250 on a dark night, so he was setting himself up for failure, but cmon.
This is one of the use cases where it's clear it's the wrong tool for the job.
How does this compare to a dark shot of a tennis court with the X100V? Seems a bit pot / kettle ... black, no?
p.36 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I borrowed the Q from a Leica shop for a few days. I don’t like the soap bar shape much and the lens protrudes too much for it to work as my EDC - sure, when it’s out of my bag maybe it’s much of a muchness, but I need the slimmer profile for it to make it into my bag and leave the house with me in the first place.
Yes, the lens is nice, but I didn’t feel it was £5500 nice - especially when I disliked the form factor.
gordec wrote:
You have to own a Q to understand how good the Summilux lens is. Looking at online pictures won't do it justice. The images it produces has so much pop. I sold the Q2 because I wanted to focus on the M system. Every time I look through my old Q2 pictures on my monitor, I'm just like damn. It's so special. So I ended up getting the Q3. The leap from Q3 to an APSC is like the Grand Canyon because I owned and sold the X100VI.
From the raw images I have downloaded for the RF, I think it's much closer to the Q, but the Summilux is clearly a better lens. But now you have more options. Do you want that much megapixel? Is f4 ok for you? Size wise it's not significant. ...Show more →
p.36 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jjcha wrote:
I need 1/125th. I can't slow the shutter speed more. I need F5.6 (full frame equivalent) for depth of field. I am pushing these natural light shots as hard as I can. I will take what I can from any sensor. The GFX100RF will do these shots better....
...You wonder why the designers worked so hard to make the GFX100RF so small. Why they didn't fit in IBIS. Why they didn't sacrifice a little for F3.0 maybe.
Nice pictures
Yesterday I was shooting somewhat similar pictures with Nikon Coolpix A. I want 1/250 sec or faster speed in fast pace street photography.
I also use zone focus when photographing in the streets - and when there is enough light to stop down. Actually I cannot choose because Coolpix A has such a miserable AF (GRIII is not much better). For GFX100RF this might be a problem because f5.6-8 is not enough and one needs to stop down to preferably f/11. It would be a big help if Fuji (miraculously) has good enough AF to be used at least sometimes.
IBIS and brighter lens are not needed in street photography. But they would make the much more versatile - with the expense of larger size and higher price. Closer to Hasselblad X2d territory. I think I can live with the compromise Fuji choosed to make.
p.36 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
For C1 slight undercorrection is fairly typical. It can be easily adjusted further by hand as the distortion is round, no mustache at all.
"no mustache at all" ... good to hear (another data point) again.
p.36 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I have the RF now in use and love the camera so much (also having full frame for wildlife): it's all about the shooting experience , the files are very sharp and better than full frame.I can the use he camera in one hand , which is a huge pro for me.I sold my Q2 last year as I didn't like the ergonomics at all : it just felt like a brick with a lens that makes the camera front heavy.The camera ai slighter and smaller than I first thought, the copped files are , even with highest crop very sharp.In all this is for me the ideal street camera.If the lens is not fast enough and no IBS : if this relevant for the shooting , then I take my GFX100sII , simple as that
p.36 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
IBIS and brighter lens are not needed in street photography. But they would make the much more versatile - with the expense of larger size and higher price. Closer to Hasselblad X2d territory. I think I can live with the compromise Fuji choosed to make.
+1
The matter of general versatility with IBIS ... I think that is well understood that it has a certain value to it. But, to your point, I've rarely shot street with the Q2 at f/1.7. Generally speaking, I try to shoot around f/4 - f/5.6 (FF terms), so the f/4 on the GFX 100RF doesn't seem out of line with that. And, as to shutter speeds (i.e. slow enough to NEED IBIS with a wide lens) ... those are shutter speeds that are going to incur (subject) motion blur.
So, if I'm trying to AVOID subject motion blur, I'm shooting with an SS that is high enough that IBIS isn't needed.
Alternatively, if I'm trying to EMBRACE subject motion blur with a slow / drag / pan shutter (i.e. slow enough that IBIS could be helpful, duly noted that it can be) ... my "tolerance" for camera motion blur in conjunction with (and relative to) subject motion blur is different than shooting static subjects for perfect detail.
Again, that's not to suggest IBIS isn't without its merit. But, as there are a zillion folks shooting Leica M cameras ... all without IBIS, it is self-evident that IBIS isn't the end all / need all for such work. And, the fact that one of the members in this thread reverted from an IBIS X100VI to a non-IBIS X100V ... well, IBIS has its value ... and use case. But, the lack of IBIS is far from being the "kiss of death" for not being in the GFX 100RF (imo). Never mind that the DR of the GFX 100RF is more than +2 EV (Max PDR) , over the smaller 100V or 100VI and nearly two stops better in low light. Those two stops (when needed) ... can be the difference between say 1/15s and 1/60s, which moves the wide lens + leaf shutter back into don't need IBIS territory ... or for steady hands, from 1/4s > 1/15s, etc. YMMV.
BTW, that earlier video with the photographer bracing the "side" of the camera against the building was cool to see. I've braced a lot of different ways, but it was still cool to see someone doing it.
p.36 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Orsonneke wrote:
If the lens is not fast enough and no IBS : if this relevant for the shooting , then I take my GFX100sII , simple as that
+1 for understanding that NO SINGLE camera covers all scenarios, for all people, all the time.
Recognizing this ^ ... imo, is a key part to understanding the value of what the GFX 100RF is ... in conjunction with understanding what it is not (nor trying to square peg, round hole it).
The use case for how folks want to (or not) incorporate this into their workstream, with their other gear is highly variable ... options abound.
Some will understand how it fits for them. For others, it will (understandably) be a hard pass if they can't figure out where it slots in for them.
p.36 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Back to my wondering about WCL & TCL from a Fuji interview with dpreview…
As for whether the GFX100RF will ever get add-on optical lenses to change its field of view, similar to those for the X100 series, the company says it thinks the digital teleconverter is the way. "At this moment, we think that because of the 102MP, the digital teleconverter works," said Yoneda. "But depending on the users' feedback, we can, of course, consider any possibility of the wide-angle and teleconverter."
Another reason is the digital teleconverter. If it comes with an OVF, we'd have to cover 20mm of range when using the teleconverter, which would make the guide-lines much smaller. So, from a practical point of view, we decided to install the EVF."
