p.49 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
vineyard wrote:
I can get a 50mm/0.95 for my Leica m. I do have 1.2 and 1.4 lenses for it. An f4 lens is allready pretty dark, and does require relatively slow shutter speeds in many situations. That’s when an ibis would really help. When you have an f1.2 lens, it’s much easier to shoot at shutter speeds that don’t require ibis.
But you are forgetting about the dof. A 1.2 lens might be great for gathering light…but sucks if you want to get a lot environment in focus. When I’m traveling, I want my images to show off the unique environment…not some fuzzed out background that could have been just as easily taken in my backyard.
p.49 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
It's not unthinkable that this camera lacks IBIS, but it's worth acknowledging it is something missing that most modern cameras do have. And when the GFX100RF mark II comes out with IBIS, nobody will complain about its addition. I can certainly get by without it, but I'd prefer to have it.
p.49 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
if you need ibis or f 2 get one of those big medium format cameras but if you want a small camera get the Fuji GFX RF 100 , simple really.
cry babies need not bother with the new compact Fuji just get one of those big dinosaurs and be happy.
p.49 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
vertigo1959 wrote:
if you need ibis or f 2 get one of those big medium format cameras but if you want a small camera get the Fuji GFX RF 100 , simple really.
cry babies need not bother with the new compact Fuji just get one of those big dinosaurs and be happy.
Very logical thinking…unfortunately logic seems to escape a few posters here.
p.49 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Wish I could understand why this thread needs to be full of so much snark, when in general the folks being accused and called names are making pretty rational points.
There isn't a perfect product out there in the world. I may particularly like some of my gear, but even products I admire have faults or things they could do better. Nothing wrong with acknowledging the bad or missing as well as the good — it's an essential part of making products get better over time.
p.49 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chez wrote:
But you are forgetting about the dof. A 1.2 lens might be great for gathering light…but sucks if you want to get a lot environment in focus. When I’m traveling, I want my images to show off the unique environment…not some fuzzed out background that could have been just as easily taken in my backyard.
Not poo pooing the f4 lens but the beauty of having a f1.2 lens is that you can close it down when you need to right?
p.49 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
The issue is it's No IBIS + slow lens. On my Leica M, I can always slap on a f1.4 lens and crank up the shutter speed, here you're at a f3 full frame equivalent best case
From my point of view, compact fixed lens cameras like these always involve a series of compromises and tradeoffs. It's true that IBIS would increase the size of the camera, but I think it's inevitable that we'll see it in the next revision and that the size increase will not be a significant drawback to most. But a faster lens would cause a much more significant size increase.
p.49 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I think we can pretty well put this in the realm that it is being perceived by:
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can't do.
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can do.
"Can't do'ers" should look elsewhere ... perpetually comparing it to what it isn't from the armchair of cyberland can live on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, there very likely will be folks who use it well, for what it can do.
p.49 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I think we can pretty well put this in the realm that it is being perceived by:
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can't do.
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can do.
"Can't do'ers" should look elsewhere ... perpetually comparing it to what it isn't from the armchair of cyberland can live on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, there very likely will be folks who use it well, for what it can do.
p.49 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I think we can pretty well put this in the realm that it is being perceived by:
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can't do.
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can do.
"Can't do'ers" should look elsewhere ... perpetually comparing it to what it isn't from the armchair of cyberland can live on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, there very likely will be folks who use it well, for what it can do.
What can it do better than the other options? I can live with trade offs but it doesn't seem like it's better than the alternatives in any meaningful way.
p.49 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
What can it do better than the other options? I can live with trade offs but it doesn't seem like it's better than the alternatives in any meaningful way.
Size and bulk…might not be important to you…but for others it is key.
p.49 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I think we can pretty well put this in the realm that it is being perceived by:
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can't do.
Those who look at the camera and are focused on what they perceive it can do.
"Can't do'ers" should look elsewhere ... perpetually comparing it to what it isn't from the armchair of cyberland can live on ad infinitum. Meanwhile, there very likely will be folks who use it well, for what it can do.
When considering ANY camera decision you want to consider both what it can and cannot do, and you want to consider what it does well and less well, and then how those compromises align with your photographic needs.
p.49 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
fotografur wrote:
Not poo pooing the f4 lens but the beauty of having a f1.2 lens is that you can close it down when you need to right?
35/1.2 (or 1.5-ish) on MF ... gonna be beasty. 0.95 (1.2-ish) would be monstrous. Also, the IQ of lenses that are that large aperture are either going to need to be stopped down for improved IQ performance ... or, be designed as behemoth glass to achieve that speed and be well corrected. Now, you have to carry that size / weight and still stop down to achieve reasonable DOF.
At which point, you are talking about an ILC ... which already exists. The point here is to provide an alternative to that packaged in a way that yields a different shooting experience than toting an MF ILC and ILC glass. Essentially, an X100 on steroids, or an M with a small (and slower) lens experience, emulating an outing without your bag of primes ... but, in the MF sensor format.
Again, perspective ... those who want to see what it isn't, are missing out on seeing what it is.
p.49 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
When considering ANY camera decision you want to consider both what it can and cannot do, and you want to consider what it does well and less well, and then how those compromises align with your photographic needs.
p.49 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chez wrote:
Size and bulk…might not be important to you…but for others it is key.
it's only small if you don't properly weather seal it. Once you properly weather seal the camera and add the filter, it's just as big, if not bigger than a Leica Q3 or Sony A7CR. I don't think this camera is an image quality champion either by any means.
So this goes back to my original question, what does it actually do better?
p.49 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
When considering ANY camera decision you want to consider both what it can and cannot do, and you want to consider what it does well and less well, and then how those compromises align with your photographic needs.
Of course, we should seek to understand the pro / con of the camera attributes ... i.e. of any tool. There's a difference between understanding the tool ... and dismissing the tool wholesale for your use case, and using that to suggest that others are going to be restricted by it, if it doesn't align with your perceived needs.
Personally, I've come to realize that I simply DON'T shoot my WA's (on my M, etc.) at shallow DOF ... even when I could. Instead, I bump the ISO. The two stops I "could" get from f/4 to f/2 result in a reduction in lens IQ, and a reduction in DOF. The trade to retain those attributes (imo) trumps the bump of two stops in ISO. And, since the M doesn't have IBIS ... it's a learned approach that I'm good with. The GFX 100RF follows the same ethos, imo. Of course, you could spend the $$$ for an M11, too ... but, not have the Fuji MF sensor. For those wanting the MF sensor, but not the bulk of the GFX MILC approach, the 100RF is an option.
p.49 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
What can it do better than the other options? I can live with trade offs but it doesn't seem like it's better than the alternatives in any meaningful way.
I think the main point here is that if you desire the MF sensor and IQ it offers ... but, are put off by the bulk and form of the GFX MILC ... here's your option.
Whether that is coming from FF or as the X100 series on steroids ... the qualifier is that you desire the MF sensor. If you don't desire the MF sensor ... or you already enjoy the bulk and form of the GFX MILC, then it likely doesn't offer "better than others" options. The salient point here is what you get ... in the package form / size that it is. Very much like the Leica M ethos.
By that, I mean I can get Leica SL lenses on a Leica SL3 (or a Panny L mount) and use those big Leica SL lenses to get an optic that is "even better" than some of the M lenses. BUT, the attractant to the M series is "just how dang good" they are in the form / size that they are ... which makes for a different carry experience than toting around the SL APO glass (even if the SL APO glass can trump the M glass on the MTF charts ... hint, the M glass is still dang good.).
So, to your question ... the "better" is the combination of GFX sensor in the smaller form factor. Sure, the X100 is smaller, but it doesn't have the GFX sensor. Sure, the 100S has the GFX sensor, but it doesn't have the form factor. The GFX 100RF has the sensor AND the smaller form factor than the other GFX sensor options. For some, that is a "better" combination than the other options, regarding the IQ vs. carry experience.
Ultimately, that then boils down to a "better" carry experience for MF shooting. If folks can't relate to the prospect of this ... then, yup ... look elsewhere.
Of course, there's always the Hassy X2D (with IBIS) + 38/2.5 (with faster glass) for around $10K and more bulk.
p.49 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
35/1.2 (or 1.5-ish) on MF ... gonna be beasty. 0.95 (1.2-ish) would be monstrous. Also, the IQ of lenses that are that large aperture are either going to need to be stopped down for improved IQ performance ... or, be designed as behemoth glass to achieve that speed and be well corrected. Now, you have to carry that size / weight and still stop down to achieve reasonable DOF.
At which point, you are talking about an ILC ... which already exists. The point here is to provide an alternative to that packaged in a way that yields a different shooting experience than toting an MF ILC and ILC glass. Essentially, an X100 on steroids, or an M with a small (and slower) lens experience, emulating an outing without your bag of primes ... but, in the MF sensor format.
Again, perspective ... those who want to see what it isn't, are missing out on seeing what it is.
