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              49              51              86       87       end
  

Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread

  
 
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


fotografur wrote:
Commenting on @vineyard@ 's comment related to FF.


Gotcha.



Apr 17, 2025 at 08:37 PM
bwcolor
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


F 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.


A bit overstated. My X2D with the 38mm XCDv lens isn’t big and it is very comfortable in the hand. Other XCD lenses are smaller. My A7CR with any one of a number of f/2.0-f/4.0 lenses is smaller and has IBIS. The RF is just another camera with a set of tradeoffs..like any camera.



Apr 17, 2025 at 08:42 PM
tzhang4284
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


RustyBug wrote:
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
...Show more

I'll wait for the official MTF charts but to my eyes on a 5k monitor - I don't really see any difference between the GFX100RF sensor + lens sample images vs say the Q3 43mm APO or even the x100vi so I'm not sure image quality is even a selling point. 61mp vs 100mp feels like rounding error.

Like I said though, I'll wait and see for myself though if I get off the pre-order list.



Apr 17, 2025 at 08:59 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tzhang4284 wrote:
I'll wait for the official MTF charts but to my eyes on a 5k monitor - I don't really see any difference between the GFX100RF sensor + lens sample images vs say the Q3 43mm APO or even the x100vi so I'm not sure image quality is even a selling point. 61mp vs 100mp feels like rounding error.

Like I said though, I'll wait and see for myself though if I get off the pre-order list.


Understood ... if the MF sensor isn't calling to you, then the "combination" just lost its "combo". As to the "rounding error" ... I think if you are a native 3:2 shooter, that's even more the case. Otoh, if you are a 4:3 or 1:1 oriented shooter, then the difference is a bit more meaningful between 61MP 3:2, cropped to 4:3 or 1:1 vs. the 100MP 4:3 cropped (oops, not cropped) to 4:3, or 1:1. Using 1:1 for example, your 36x24 becomes 24x24, whereas your 44x33 becomes 33x33. The difference between 24x24 vs. 33x33 is

6300x6300 @ 300PPI = 21 inch, @ 200PPI = 31 inch
8700x8700 @ 300 PPI = 29 inch, @ 200PPI = 43 inch

So, the basic difference is having a 30 inch @ 300PPI vs. 200PPI.

All the "extra pixels for cropping" and different formats feature is nice ... but, at the core of it is (to your "rounding" point) whether or not the extra 40% (ish) pixel dimensions have value to you. So, here again ... the "combination" is predicated upon your interest in the GFX sensor in a form factor package. No interest in the sensor, then no interest in the combination, is likely.



Apr 17, 2025 at 09:31 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


bwcolor wrote:
F

A bit overstated. My X2D with the 38mm XCDv lens isn’t big and it is very comfortable in the hand. Other XCD lenses are smaller. My A7CR with any one of a number of f/2.0-f/4.0 lenses is smaller and has IBIS. The RF is just another camera with a set of tradeoffs..like any camera.


Yes ... tradeoffs. The X2D with 38 is "twice the price". The A7CR has one stop less max PDR. The GFX 100RF sits in a space between these tradeoffs, with its own (differing) tradeoffs.



Apr 17, 2025 at 09:41 PM
tzhang4284
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


RustyBug wrote:
Understood ... if the MF sensor isn't calling to you, then the "combination" just lost its "combo". As to the "rounding error" ... I think if you are a native 3:2 shooter, that's even more the case. Otoh, if you are a 4:3 or 1:1 oriented shooter, then the difference is a bit more meaningful between 61MP 3:2, cropped to 4:3 or 1:1 vs. the 100MP 4:3 cropped (oops, not cropped) to 4:3, or 1:1. Using 1:1 for example, your 36x24 becomes 24x24, whereas your 44x33 becomes 33x33. The difference between 24x24 vs. 33x33 is

6300x6300 @ 300PPI = 21 inch,
...Show more

I think you missed my main point in that the underlying lens seems mediocre from both a sharpness and rendering perspective that makes the 100mp sensor irrelevant. Cropping and higher resolutions just means you're magnifying the mediocrity. The sensor means nothing without the lens.



Apr 17, 2025 at 10:14 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tzhang4284 wrote:
I think you missed my main point in that the underlying lens seems mediocre from both a sharpness and rendering perspective that makes the 100mp sensor irrelevant. Cropping and higher resolutions just means you're magnifying the mediocrity. The sensor means nothing without the lens.


No ... I didn't miss the point. I basically addressed it previously when I spelled out the difference between the SL APO vs. the M lenses. Yes, the MTF's are higher on the SL APO, but the the M lenses aren't that far behind. And, that difference is an acceptable tradeoff for the different carry experience. Even when I use my SL2-S ... I mount my M lenses, except when I need to use tele glass. I don't even own any normal or wide SL glass.

Will the Fuji 35/4 be on the same level as the Summilux on the MTF's ... I expect not. But, then too, does the 35/4 exhibit as much distortion as the Q. I think that the optical designs have to be looked at in full context. MTF is one, distortion is one, vignetting is one, bokeh / rendering also. For me ... I know that I've had some "pain points" with the Q distortion at times. So, I'll have some decisions about tradeoff of MTF diff vs. distortion diff (vs. f-stop diff vs. OIS diff). The distortion on the 35/4 seems less and simpler than the Q. In the context of shooting my M glass (rather than Q Summilux context), the distortion of my 24/2.8 is better than the Q. No OIS and slower than the Q. The Q likely has a higher MTF than the 24/2.8, also ... and yet, I shoot the 24/2.8 on M more than the Q. Go figure.

So, the 24/2.8, typically shot at f/4 - f/5.6 (while wider) on my M vs. the 35/4 on the GFX 100R ... not that much difference in terms of IBIS and max aperture (less so in application). I'm not discounting the difference in the glass ... but, it also might fall into the category of "rounding error" regarding the amount of differences for a given attribute (i.e. MTF or distortion or vignetting, etc.)

So, yes ... as a system, the lens + sensor are part of the evaluation / assessment. If your work is dead set required to have the absolute highest MTF available ... then, you don't even have to wait to kick the GFX 100RF to the curb. It won't be that lens. It's a "pancake" lens on an MF body. No more than I expect my pancake M 40/2 Cron to perform as well on the MTF charts as my 35/2 Cron ASPH. It won't trump the MTF's ... but, that's not why I shoot my 40 Cron. Sometimes it's for the compact carry, other times its for the rendering ... not the spec sheet.

I can pretty much guarantee that there are options that will have better MTF spec sheets than the GFX 100RF 35/4. If that MTF spec sheet is your goal ... cancel your pre-order now, and be done with it.

If you want to know how it feels in your hand to carry it, how it looks through its EVF, how the tilt display functions, how the leaf shutter response is ... you'll have to get it in your hands. And NONE OF THAT can be found on the spec sheet. That's going to be about the interface experience between you and the tool. Imo, these (combined with sensor / form factor) are the attractants to the GFX 100RF. Unfortunately, we can't answer these for anyone other than ourselves. Heck, we can't even get the answer to this from You Tubers. The only way we'll know is to pick one up. Some never will even explore it. Others will explore it and say "nope". Others will explore it and say "meh". Others will go "Oh yeah, baby !!!" I can't tell you today which one I'll be. But, I can tell you that I plan to explore it.



Edited on Apr 17, 2025 at 11:09 PM · View previous versions



Apr 17, 2025 at 10:57 PM
tzhang4284
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


Im comparing mainly to the q3 43mm apo, q3 and x100vi. I’m not sure the point of your tangent to sl apos and m lenses. From the images I’ve seen, I’m not sure it’s better than those three cameras from an image quality perspective. I think the q3 43mm apo is definitely superior and not sure the x100vi is much worse at f4 equivalent hence why I mentioned mtfs.

In any case, If my pre order is early enough, I’ll see with my own eyes. If not, I think no regrets here to skip.



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:08 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tzhang4284 wrote:
I think the q3 43mm apo is definitely superior


Ain't nothin' to "think" about ... that's about top of the mark. If that's your primary goal ... you're done.

Which then begs the question of why you would even mention the X100. It's gonna be a total dog compared to the Q3 43 APO on the MTF specs. I mentioned before that the GFX 100RF has entered contention to a few options. As mentioned earlier, the Q3 or Q3 43 APO is certainly part of that contender pool, too. So, yes I'm well aware of the optic on the Q3 43.


Edited on Apr 17, 2025 at 11:19 PM · View previous versions



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Smogg
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


I totally agree. Each camera has its own advantages and disadvantages. I don't use wide apertures and I don't shoot slower than 1/125. I have an X2D+38, but I still bought the GFX100RF because of the significant weight difference and the good face detection with tracking and convenient digital zoom (for me, this camera replaces a 28-50 zoom, while remaining compact). If I go out specifically for photography, I will most likely take the X2D or M11-P, and if I go for a walk around the city alone or with my family, when photography is not excluded, I will take the GFX100RF. On a trip, I will also most likely take the GFX100RF.

RustyBug wrote:
No ... I didn't miss the point. I basically addressed it previously when I spelled out the difference between the SL APO vs. the M lenses. Yes, the MTF's are higher on the SL APO, but the the M lenses aren't that far behind. And, that difference is an acceptable tradeoff for the different carry experience. Even when I use my SL2-S ... I mount my M lenses, except when I need to use tele glass. I don't even own any normal or wide SL glass.

Will the Fuji 35/4 be on the same level as the Summilux on the MTF's
...Show more



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:18 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Smogg
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


The Q3 or Q3 43 have such bad AF-C and face detection that you can say they don't have these features. You have to use the center point focus. In addition, the EVF and external display of the Q3 are much worse than the GFX100RF (the dynamic range is narrower), as a result, shadow details are almost invisible in sunny weather.

tzhang4284 wrote:
Im comparing mainly to the q3 43mm apo, q3 and x100vi. I’m not sure the point of your tangent to sl apos and m lenses. From the images I’ve seen, I’m not sure it’s better than those three cameras from an image quality perspective. I think the q3 43mm apo is definitely superior and not sure the x100vi is much worse at f4 equivalent hence why I mentioned mtfs.

In any case, If my pre order is early enough, I’ll see with my own eyes. If not, I think no regrets here to skip.




Apr 17, 2025 at 11:22 PM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tzhang4284 wrote:
I think you missed my main point in that the underlying lens seems mediocre from both a sharpness and rendering perspective that makes the 100mp sensor irrelevant. Cropping and higher resolutions just means you're magnifying the mediocrity. The sensor means nothing without the lens.


You are getting at one of the things that seems to so often overlooked with this camera.

miniMF can resolve more details than FF and other smaller formats. But in order for that to be meaningful a set of other variables must be handled more precisely, too. The lens quality is one of them. (I don’t know what the optical quality is of the RF lens – it seems at last good.) But another is the stability of the camera itself. If you put it on a tripod and are careful, there is a difference between 61MP FF and 102MP miniMF — though you won’t see it in web images and probably not in prints until you get to some pretty big sizes.

But from all I can tell and what I read, this is not a camera that a significant number of people intend to put on a tripod. It seems to be desired because of its small size and lighter weight and because it doesn’t encumber the photographer. Quite a few folks are discussing this camera for their street and/or travel photography. If you are shooting handheld, you have to be even more careful than you would be with a full frame system if you want to achieve the potential resolutionadvantage of that larger, higher pixel-density sensor.

Whatever the delta is between miniMF and FF and smaller systems with the same angle of view, it is diminished when handholding the camera, especially without lens IS or IBIS… and the FF alternative is already capable of producing very high quality 30” x 45” prints — so we aren’t talking about a difference between bad and good but a difference between really excellent and perhaps a bit more really excellent… if you are careful.

Again, there is a use case for this camera — but it is rather small.

Edited on Apr 18, 2025 at 09:29 AM · View previous versions



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:23 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


tzhang4284 wrote:

I’m not sure the point of your tangent to sl apos and m lenses.


Cancel your pre-order of the GFX 100RF.

If you didn't follow the prospect of the tradeoff of size / weight vs. "rounding error" difference in IQ, then you'll likely never appreciate the form factor of the GFX 100RF.

OTOH ... if you get it in your hands, maybe it'll "click" for you then. User interface experience can be a powerful thing.



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:25 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


gdanmitchell wrote:
But from all I can tell and what I read, this is not a camera that people intend to put on a tripod. It seems to be desired because of its small size and lighter weight and because it doesn’t encumber the photographer.


I see it as having the ability for variance ... reduced encumbrance when conditions are favorable or socially desired. Minor compromise potential that "ain't bad" when they are less favorable. Tripod or other disciplined technique for max diligence for other work. The reduced encumbrance is appealing, but it doesn't rule out the diligence to maximize its potential, also.



Apr 17, 2025 at 11:29 PM
vineyard
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #15 · 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.


Obviously I can stop down a 1.2 lens to f4 or f8 or whatever I want, if I want a sharp background. But you can not "stop up" an f4 lens, if you need more light, a faster shutter speed etc.

That wasn't even the point though. You asked about the Leica m, and why no one "will acknowledge" the existence of Leica m shooters in the context of this discussion of the RF missing stabilization. The answer is what I said: you can put a 50/0.95 or 1.2 on the Leica m, but can also stop those fast lenses down. For m shooters, the lack of ibis doesn't matter nearly as much. It's not people "not acknowledging", it's that the comparison isn't very useful.



Apr 18, 2025 at 05:15 AM
matt_h2o
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.50 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


If your use case is that you don’t need a very shallow plane of focus, that you shoot above 1/60 and/or you lean more towards ‘are bure boke’ than towards razor sharpness, that you like the Fuji MF sensor and that you like the form factor, then it’s a good camera. If you need something else, there are other cameras. It’s really simple.


Apr 18, 2025 at 06:42 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


vineyard wrote:
Obviously I can stop down a 1.2 lens to f4 or f8 or whatever I want, if I want a sharp background. But you can not "stop up" an f4 lens, if you need more light, a faster shutter speed etc.

That wasn't even the point though. You asked about the Leica m, and why no one "will acknowledge" the existence of Leica m shooters in the context of this discussion of the RF missing stabilization. The answer is what I said: you can put a 50/0.95 or 1.2 on the Leica m, but can also stop those fast lenses down.
...Show more

Its comparison is similar to going out with a smaller, slower, compact lens mounted on an M ... without carrying additional lenses during your outing to give you the most "streamlined" carry experience. This is the (albeit a fixed lens) is the MF similarity.

The old adage of mounted up a single lens and leaving it on for an extended period of time, to become accustomed to that FL, etc. ... on an M (i.e. without IBIS). Not that much difference between mounting a 28 / 2.8 Elmarit on an M and going out solo (i.e. no lens changes). For those who seemingly can't get their heads around the GFX 1000RF ... this is a reasonably close comparison to what the carry experience of the 35/4 (fixed) lens would be like. An f/4 or f/5.6 pancake on an M is even smaller / restricting in certain terms ... YET, people DO head out with such a svelte / slim carry as a one lens only approach for an outing.

So, yes ... as a system, the M system can change lenses. The GFX 100RF is not a "system" camera. It is a fixed lens camera that is designed for a subset carry experience (much like a Q doesn't make for an entire system, either). I referenced the M because of its lack of IBIS and folks do carry it with small lenses at times. While the Q is the "more obvious" comparison ... approaching something similar to the GFX 100RF without the stabilization of the Q's OIS, takes us into the Leica M perspective.

The matter was to emulate a non-stabilized, small form package with a slower lens. The M can be setup in similar fashion. Yes, it has the ability to change lenses. But, as an aid to understanding what the experience of the GFX 100RF might be like without IBIS ... the M is referenced ... and yes, tons of folks are shooting without IBIS, and can do so with small (or large) lenses. I understand that the issue then becomes the tradeoff of SS limits > ISO bump (or pp). But (imo) it isn't a "show stopper", just because I can't mount a Lux or Nok on the GFX 100RF. I rarely shoot a Cron below f/3.5 ... and get along just fine in that regard. I don't see the 35/4 as being restrictive the way some folks do.

YMMV, others will dissent. But, yeah ... shooting at f/3.5 on an M ... vs. f/4 on the GFX 100RF, my exposure experiences will be similar, and the package will be smaller than shooting a GFX 100 II with available ILC glass. Will the GFX 100RF be a standalone "system" that encompasses everything someone does ... not likely. But, for trying to get your head around the experience of the carry ... carrying the M with a slower lens, is a comparison that is a bit of a FF bridge in concept from a non-IBIS X100 > M+small / slow > GFX 100RF ... as non-IBIS + slow glass experience. The salient difference being the inherent sensor size from APS-C > FF > MF. That, and the addition of the EVF / AF / Tilt Display vs. the M. But, the non-IBIS related perspective of being limited by the lens carries through in those three setups. Again, some will dissent.

And, the point that the GFX 100 already exists for ILC ... the GFX 100RF is an alternate carry experience to the ILC experience for using faster glass. Which, btw ... for the GFX MF ... the glass options don't get nearly as fast as the FF or APS-C options, anyway. The tradeoff of size for the f/4 isn't a death blow (imo), as some seem to suggest. But, if it is a deal breaker for some folks, then they can certainly do something different ... lots of choices, besides the GFX 100RF. But, (imo) it is the combination of MF and carry experience that renders its attraction. For those who are focused on what it can't do technically ... rather than what it will allow you to experience, and how that interface / influences what you may do with it ... look elsewhere.







Edited on Apr 18, 2025 at 07:14 AM · View previous versions



Apr 18, 2025 at 07:03 AM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


It does have the regular FLC fitting of a low inertia leaf shutter to help a little. On fast lenses for travel, travel being a major usage of this one for many buyers:

. many low light options present themselves for fast lens capture at the right FL in comps that certainly don't require a lot of abstracted bokeh. Think temple / church / museum / cafe / heritage / street lit scenes etc. with either near planar or a decent distance from the camera. Hundreds of them, and the RF cannot do them efficiently, because you won't want ISOs 4-5 stops up if you can avoid this deterioration in final IQ. ISO 800 will work much better than ISO 12800, and ISO 2000 is still good where ISO 32000 is not on. And it gets worse because more image content will be inside the DOF envelope.

. a big and growing trend is to use fast wide angles to get their unique and artistic look in these interior a d exterior spaces, talking about 21mm in particular.

. busy scenes in developing countries often look horrible with too much DOF, because of cramped conditions and distracting competing elements. You simply need better control than f4 permits.

. many want something different, including a cinematic look to their take home catch.

All this goes double for street portraits in the best light conditions: at dusk leading into evening. Not to put a dampener on slow lens cams, I have several myself, but more to indicate that you give up a lot for this kind of gig. And I (and others may also) dislike non-organic light.

It will be wonderful inside its tightly defined scope, of course, but a lot of photos will inevitably have that huge point and shoot appearance due to the laws of physics. You have to know what you can't do as well as what you can do.



Apr 18, 2025 at 07:09 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


philip_pj wrote:
You have to know what you can't do as well as what you can do.


Agreed.

If I'm specifically heading into the depth of handheld, noir shooting ... which is unto itself a niche application ... that niche application and the GFX 100RF may not be the best mating of application and tool all the time.

So, if someone is a heavy niche noir shooter, then they may gravitate to a different tool. Certainly. If you're not a niche noir shooter, then the position that the GFX 100RF isn't well suited to that application may or may not be applicable to your assessment of its utility for you.

So, not only do you have to know what its capabilities are ... you have to understand that in context with your applications. It cuts both ways, indeed.

That, and take inventory if you are letting "One bad apple" keep you from the tasty other aspects. I think folks are well to consider the 80/20 rule here. If the "limitations" of the GFX 100RF impact more than 20% of your work, then move on. If it's limitations apply to less than 20% of your work, then consider if you are allowing those use case exceptions of what it can't do override the impact of what it can do for you the majority of the time for you.

If I am too focused on what something can't do ... I'll never enjoy what it can do. I tend to acknowledge exceptions and limitations, but I don't let them rule me to the degree that the sour grapes of the challenges it encompasses, keep me from the fruit. Others ... your call on how you approach limitations vs. capabilities (of anything). Everything we assess has those relationships of limits / capabilities / challenges / etc. This one is no different.

Of course, I still need to "taste the fruit" to fully understand how that relationship plays out in reality. But, I'll still take a bite to find out. Others, some never will even try it on for size, adhering to a focus on the 20%, rather than exploring the 80%.





Apr 18, 2025 at 07:21 AM
itai195
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.50 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread


I agree, as odd as it feels to say I expect the GFX100RF’s autofocus system will be superior to the Q3’s. Much as I like that camera, the vaunted AF improvements were pretty minor and Leica haven’t done much to improve them since release. My Q3 regularly thinks all sorts of inanimate objects are faces - a phenomenon I’ve run into with many cameras but most have long since ironed out, and the Q is particularly partial to it. On balance I’m not sure that makes the GFX superior for my needs, but it is part of the calculation.

Smogg wrote:
The Q3 or Q3 43 have such bad AF-C and face detection that you can say they don't have these features. You have to use the center point focus. In addition, the EVF and external display of the Q3 are much worse than the GFX100RF (the dynamic range is narrower), as a result, shadow details are almost invisible in sunny weather.





Apr 18, 2025 at 10:17 AM
1       2       3              49              51              86       87       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              49              51              86       87       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account