p.58 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Malick80 wrote:
I mentioned the GFXRF vs Q/1/2/3 comparison of the length of the lenses ... to me, it's not a dramatic difference in person once you compare apples to apples (no filters, no hoods). Yes, the Fuji is more compact ... but all the reviewers I saw compare these two said the Fuji was MUCH MORE compact. I disagree, to the point that honestly I wouldn't choose the Fuji over the Leica just for this point if going to do street or traveling etc.
I don’t think the size difference is significant. F1.7 vs f3.2 (full frame equivalent) is very significant. One thing I enjoy greatly on the Q3 is how easy it is to transfer to Leica Foto and direct import to LR and edit on IPad Pro. Can you comment on how is the app for the 100RF? I can’t imagine editing 100mp files on the IPad on vacations.
p.58 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
It's WILD to think that the RF might be people's first foray into a Fuji body period. Those people are in a for a shock/world of hurt between the menu kludge, god awful mobile app, having to navigate with a bad joystick, and file sizes, especially after they paid a luxury price, especially if they are expecting a Leica-type experience.
p.58 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Jack Flesher wrote:
I agree with @RoamingScott@ — if those are representative of typical night shots, then it’s not going to be a viable street or even travel cam fir me.
I’m seeing ISO 12,800 much cleaner than those. My guess is he is using film sims with added grain. If you don’t zoom in I can see an aesthetic there which works ok to my eye but it’s clearly degrading the image quality. He’s also shooting through windows attenuating light further.
p.58 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
It's WILD to think that the RF might be people's first foray into a Fuji body period. Those people are in a for a shock/world of hurt between the menu kludge, god awful mobile app, having to navigate with a bad joystick, and file sizes, especially after they paid a luxury price, especially if they are expecting a Leica-type experience.
Well ... it is (new) about 1/2 the price of a (new) 60MP Leica M11 + (new) Lens. I think that if folks are getting 80-90% of that ethos (i.e. mechanical controls for the triangle, RF located VF), there's a certain level of quid pro quo that comes along for the ride, in exchange for that $$$ differential.
6 Cyl Mustang pricing isn't gonna get 8 Cyl Corvette performance. Corvette pricing isn't gonna get 12 Cyl Ferrari or Lambo experience.
Of course, given the statement above ... it basically gives credence to the Leica experience, as being more valuable. Gee, that's not something you hear everyday from non-Leica folks.
Note: I did check my M246 (assuming same of my M10R) to verify the threaded (i.e. cable release) shutter release button didn't have the play mentioned above. Pretty much, half press, click, with good crisp staging. How much value / discount someone places on that haptic difference, will certainly be subjective ... and may be reasonable quid pro quo for the MF sensor and $$$ diff for some folks. For others, it could be a deal breaker.
p.58 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
Yes, you can see the image with the chosen aspect ratio if you are shooting JPEG as well. With raw + JPEG you may need to save the JPEGF on the same card as the raw.
Ah that was it - I had been storing jpegs to the second card since I didn’t actually want them. I guess I won’t be able to use that as a workaround for the problems with RAW only playback.
p.58 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
And I see that we have now arrived at pretty much the point I thought we would eventually reach back when this thread started.
Back then, saying anything remotely critical about this camera or Fuji was enough to set people off – sometimes the same people who are now offering their own pretty tough criticisms.
p.58 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Interesting to read the IQ on pair with Leica 43mm. Main reason I sent it back the lack of sharpness and micro contrast compared 35GM. It seems the GM has raised my expectation bar too high.
I'm wondering if Sony could make this camera GM level lens in same size. I don't mind the slow aperture but I hoped for razor sharp apo lens when one of the main selling point is cropping ability.
I like the idea of this camera, with 35 f2 apo lens (voigtlander iq with Af) is a dream even with significant bigger lens.
p.58 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
Interesting to read the IQ on pair with Leica 43mm. Main reason I sent it back the lack of sharpness and micro contrast compared 35GM. It seems the GM has raised my expectation bar too high.
I'm wondering if Sony could make this camera GM level lens in same size. I don't mind the slow aperture but I hoped for razor sharp apo lens when one of the main selling point is cropping ability.
I like the idea of this camera, with 35 f2 apo lens (voigtlander iq with Af) is a dream even with significant bigger lens.
I see 35 GM being somewhat similar to Q3 43. Field of view is close enough to be used in similar use cases, portraits included. Size in not that different if A7CII/r body is used. Leica uses Sony sensors. Sony has better AF, stabilization and operation speed, though. I do not dare to comment style and ergonomics
GFX100RF is different, having wider lens and not as bright lens. One cannot crop wider... 100RF is obviously also much less suited to tradional portraiture if that is your thing. However, anybody inspired by Shore or Eggleston, or having background as Ricoh GR or Nikon Coolpix A user, might consider 100RF just about the dream camera to get.
p.58 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
Interesting to read the IQ on pair with Leica 43mm. Main reason I sent it back the lack of sharpness and micro contrast compared 35GM. It seems the GM has raised my expectation bar too high.
I'm wondering if Sony could make this camera GM level lens in same size. I don't mind the slow aperture but I hoped for razor sharp apo lens when one of the main selling point is cropping ability.
I like the idea of this camera, with 35 f2 apo lens (voigtlander iq with Af) is a dream even with significant bigger lens.
I had the 35mm GM before on the Sony A1 and A7R V - I don't think the Leica Q3 43mm APO is far behind on sharpness if at all. You can check the MTF charts out there, it's pretty close. I do think the overall color rendition and clarity is superior on the Leica over the Sony. AF though - Sony is lightyears ahead - the 35mm GM is certainly one of the best lenses available on mirrorless although it's just chunky compared to Leica.
As for my comment on the Q3 43mm APO vs GFX100RF image quality, I'll caveat that I focused mostly comparing on center image quality wide open at 43mm f2 vs 35mm f4 so it was not apples to apples and I wasn't looking very closely side by side. I agree with you on the lack of micro contrast but I think if you pixel peep, the details are there. I find in my experience this is a bit of how fuji designs their lenses across their line up - they don't go for aggressive amounts of micro contrast that I think Sony prefers but the details are there if you look closely.
I think the closest to your ideal setup is the Q3 43mm APO for what it's worth. The main issue is autofocus is not anywhere close to Sony level.
p.58 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
And I see that we have now arrived at pretty much the point I thought we would eventually reach back when this thread started.
Back then, saying anything remotely critical about this camera or Fuji was enough to set people off – sometimes the same people who are now offering their own pretty tough criticisms.
It has become a familiar pattern around here.
I know what you mean - happens a lot when one is critical of the Fuji AF system :-)
p.58 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tuomkok wrote:
I see 35 GM being somewhat similar to Q3 43. Field of view is close enough to be used in similar use cases, portraits included. Size in not that different if A7CII/r body is used. Leica uses Sony sensors. Sony has better AF, stabilization and operation speed, though. I do not dare to comment style and ergonomics
GFX100RF is different, having wider lens and not as bright lens. One cannot crop wider... 100RF is obviously also much less suited to tradional portraiture if that is your thing. However, anybody inspired by Shore or Eggleston, or having background as Ricoh GR or Nikon Coolpix A user, might consider 100RF just about the dream camera to get. ...Show more →
I spoke about the exact fact, lens quality. It's obvious not 35GM level, what surprises me it's comperable the highly praised Summicron 43 Apo. In that case I consider even the tiny Sony 40 2.5G sharper, or at least not worse at F4. And that lens opens up to f2.5. A7RV with that small prime is similar size in practice. So as always I end up the same conclusion, whats the point the Q3, RF, when A7RV, and even A7RIV can do more for significant cheaper? That was the reason of my return.
My only miss of the Sony a small, f2.8 or f1.8 28mm prime lens. And less technical side, a good RF style Alpha body with tilt screen and good EVF. I have to admit, RF camera body is a perfection for me, if manufacturers refuse to make such ilce body, then I'll get a used RF later (few years), my only concern that optical performance not worth the new price for me.
p.58 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
tzhang4284 wrote:
I find in my experience this is a bit of how fuji designs their lenses across their line up - they don't go for aggressive amounts of micro contrast that I think Sony prefers but the details are there if you look closely.
I think this is a salient point ... understanding that designers have a plethora of considerations involved in their decision making about the ethos that they bring to the table for their designs.
The age old debate of Leica vs. Zeiss, or MF vs. FF ... or other varieties of comps among glass ... often has folks hyper-focused on their favorite attributes. If micro-contrast is the holy grail for someone, then a Fuji pancake lens isn't going to deliver the same as a much larger, more ASPH elements, Zeiss design glass. I'm curious to see a proper MTF of this lens, but I think that we'll see while it won't hit the MTF microcontrast levels of some other glass, it still is a very good lens (i.e. how it held up to the Hassy 38/2.5 at f/4), etc.
Ironically, there are times we get folks (as a collective group) clamoring for a "less clinical" look, or something more "filmic" ... and then we turn around and point out that we want more micro-contrast (general statement, not a specific person) vs. a mild degree of SA under-correction, etc.
p.58 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
My current initial thoughts from having one in hand, is that Fuji has created a legitimate alternative to the Q2/Q3 in the fixed lens arena (used these are $3K-$5K for excellent condition ones). Pluses and minus on both sides, like most like competitors.
Previously I had to decide whether to keep my Q2 or my X100VI ... I'm a huge fan of both, but decided to keep the Q2.
Whether to keep the GFX100RF vs the Q2 ... going to be a much harder choice as they certainly overlap quite a bit for me. I was really hoping they would be unique enough to justify keeping both, and assumed (wrongly?) it would come down to size but to me they even out and honestly make me appreciate how "compact" the Q/1/2/3's are.... but will see if there's some other significant differentiator.
Note: I'm not one to be super picky about nuances between cameras ... they all have their quirks and I've eventually gotten used to making them work, ie menu systems I could care less, once my camera is setup I spend 99.99% shooting and rarely ever go into the menus again.
p.58 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I made a comparison with 35GM (Sorry I can't post pictures, so I share on my drive) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jce8vPpVlGOV3SSUW0CG1nDfoiMoXJW0?usp=sharing
I focuses on the window at center of image. I had to use tripod and MF, but I didn't have time.
At F4 the GM blows the RF out of water, but at f5.6 the RF is significant sharper, better than F4. I don't know if I may missed focus at f4, I used single point AF. But still I think RF at F4 is quite soft, but stopped down it catches up quickly.
IMHO it still suitable for portrait, low light at F4 with cropping up to 50mm FF fov.
p.58 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
I made a comparison with 35GM (Sorry I can't post pictures, so I share on my drive) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jce8vPpVlGOV3SSUW0CG1nDfoiMoXJW0?usp=sharing
I focuses on the window at center of image. I had to use tripod and MF, but I didn't have time.
At F4 the GM blows the RF out of water, but at f5.6 the RF is significant sharper, better than F4. I don't know if I may missed focus at f4, I used single point AF. But still I think RF at F4 is quite soft, but stopped down it catches up quickly.
IMHO it still suitable for portrait, low light at F4 with cropping up to 50mm FF fov....Show more →
do not get too excited because its just another opinion ,it means nothing at all and your test is not relevant . amazing that one stop down from full aperture the Fuji gets sharper , almost unheard of !!
p.58 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I missed out on the first batch of fulfilled orders and I am quite disappointed.
I did forget that B&H can be quite tricky for new releases. I did place an additional order much later with Amazon having lost faith in B&H. So, I have an order in both places.
Amazon just emailed me to let me know that I will receive one in the first week of May. While it is nice to get that email, I doubt I will get one in that time frame.
I did meet a Fujifilm representative at a local event who lent me a black GFX100RF to play with. He also had the X100IV and the X-M5.
So, I can give my impression comparing the size and weight of the GFX100RF vs the x100VI. The X100Vi is just a bit smaller than the GFX100RF and feels denser.
However I preferred the grip and ergonomics of the GFX100RF. I bought a V60 sd card along to take test shots. I used manual exposure to test the lowest shutter speed that I could use hand held.
Some observations:
- The AF is pretty good, but can struggle a little at low light. My GFX100S II, seems to be a bit better, but it’s difficult to say as I didn’t bring it along and I have the 55mm 1.7 which is quite a bit brighter.
- The leaf shutter is very, very quiet, but I could’t get a sharp image below 1/64 at F4. The best bet is shooting at a minimum of 1/125, while adjusting the ISO. Like my GFX100S II, the sensor is great at higher ISOs
- I find using the dial to change the ISO quite good, but I needed to make sure I seated the dial after I changed it. So, I need to make that a force of habit.
- I thought that I would prefer setting the aspect ratio to C and adjusting it with the front dial. But I actually prefer deliberately choosing the aspect ratio using the dial. The Fuji rep was asking if I wanted to make a request to be able to use the aspect ratio for something else in a future firmware update. I actually said I prefer it the way it is. I didn’t expect to feel that way.
- the toggle to crop is very convenient and I wouldn’t change that either.
- I would prefer turning off the touch functions on the back LCD, because it was a bit too sensitive during use and I would accidentally change film simulations.
- the viewfinder is bright with a pretty good refresh rate.
- the black GFX100RF is definitely very stealthy and wouldn’t attract too much attention. I wish I had ordered the black instead of the silver.
- this is a fantastic street and travel camera for really experienced photographers and would leave casual photographers frustrated. It’s a bicycle without training wheels.
- using the GFX100RF was seamless after using both my GFX100S II and X-H2S. It didn’t require additional learning. The aspect ratio dial and the crop lever really helps in the moment creativity.
- the lens is super sharp wide open at F4 and I like the way it renders.
I am still processing the files and will add other thoughts.
The Fujifilm rep has been kept in the dark about stock, price and release dates. He did say that if you didn’t get the camera already, it’s a mystery when your order would be fulfilled. So, take any vendors shipping date with a grain of salt.
I suspect that Fujifilm is waiting to determine what the final tariff position is going to be and how it would affect their bottom line before committing to supplying any more cameras or lenses.
I called my local store who had a black one in stock at a different location, but before he could sell it to me, it got sold.
I think after my experience with the GFX100RF, I definitely think it will fit in with my current system and is a highly capable low profile camera (in black.
p.58 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
The Fujifilm rep also mentioned that the demographics of the registered cameras for the X100VI has changed in the last year. I agreed that the younger age groups came from tik tok influencers.
It also looks like contrary to what Fujifilm is saying about increasing production to meet the demand, it’s not going to happen easily. Because they don’t want to “flood” the market with their cameras. This is the words the rep used.
So, don;t expect the back order situation to get better.
p.58 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
A $5000+ daylight snapshot camera that can't fit in a pocket is hilarious. The American (and therefore global) 2nd hand market for these will be awful because of the tariffs, and Fuji's supply chain struggles.
p.58 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
ISO1600 wrote:
A $5000+ daylight snapshot camera that can't fit in a pocket is hilarious. The American (and therefore global) 2nd hand market for these will be awful because of the tariffs, and Fuji's supply chain struggles.
