p.59 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
A few more thoughts on the GFX100RF:
- In daylight, the sensor, even with an F4 lens would need the built in nd filter. The light gathering ability is quite phenomenal. I noticed that in my GFX100S II too. In the case of the GFX100RF, I had to turn the ISO way down to 250 or lower for fear of overexposure. Or use faster shutter speeds and smaller f-stops.
- in low light the sensitivity of the sensor and low noise elevates any issues about F4 aperture.
- I really didn’t like the acute or sharp edges on the top plate. It doesn’t feel great on your fingers when you grab it accidentally by the edges.i understand they want to show that’s it’s milled from solid aluminum and not stamped. It still feels light considering it’s supposed to be from a block of aluminum.
p.59 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
- In daylight, the sensor, even with an F4 lens would need the built in nd filter. The light gathering ability is quite phenomenal. I noticed that in my GFX100S II too. In the case of the GFX100RF, I had to turn the ISO way down to 250 or lower for fear of overexposure. Or use faster shutter speeds and smaller f-stops.
uhhhh exposure triangle? Sounds like you can just turn the ISO down further, and/or up the shutter speed. The options are there in the camera for a reason. Unless you're mostly shooting video, I can't see any reason why this camera that maxes out at F4 NEEDS a built-in ND.
p.59 #3 · 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 →
Did you test with cameras on a tripod, IBIS turned off (Sony)? Did you shoot several shots with each refocusing with each camera? If not, there are too many variables that can taint the test.
p.59 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
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.
Many people who ordered from Amazon got the same delivery date. I expect that Amazon will be able to ship it then.
<snip>
- 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.
I am often using Auto ISO with the slowest shutter speed of 1/125.
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 prefer changing ISO with the front dial.
- 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. ...Show more →
Was Boost on or off?
- 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. ...Show more →
p.59 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote:
A few more thoughts on the GFX100RF:
- In daylight, the sensor, even with an F4 lens would need the built in nd filter.
Why? You can use a hybrid shutter that switches to the electronic shutter, allowing for speeds of up to 1/16000 sec.
The light gathering ability is quite phenomenal. I noticed that in my GFX100S II too. In the case of the GFX100RF, I had to turn the ISO way down to 250 or lower for fear of overexposure.
Why don't you shoot at ISO 100?
Or use faster shutter speeds and smaller f-stops.
- in low light the sensitivity of the sensor and low noise elevates any issues about F4 aperture.
- I really didn’t like the acute or sharp edges on the top plate. It doesn’t feel great on your fingers when you grab it accidentally by the edges.i understand they want to show that’s it’s milled from solid aluminum and not stamped. It still feels light considering it’s supposed to be from a block of aluminum.
p.59 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Malick80 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I'm looking at this as an upgrade to my Q2 also. Primary difference being the IQ potential of the sensor difference / DR / 16 bit. File size of 100MP vs. 47MP isn't a big deal for me ... the Q3 is on that radar at 61MP, as well.
The tradeoff's are the Manual / Zone Focus / Macro, and the OIS (oh, and the f/4 ... but, I shoot at f/4 a lot anyway). Personally, I don't like the shutter release on my Q, it doesn't have the tactile feedback that I like (e.g. such as the M or the SL) ... which, I'm assuming would be similar in Q3. I'm often "wondering" if I took the shot or not. That, and it doesn't hold up as well to heavy PP, as say my M10R (Q3 should cover that, though).
p.59 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
ISO1600 wrote:
uhhhh exposure triangle? Sounds like you can just turn the ISO down further, and/or up the shutter speed. The options are there in the camera for a reason. Unless you're mostly shooting video, I can't see any reason why this camera that maxes out at F4 NEEDS a built-in ND.
As mentioned in my post. Please read before dashing off a response. Thanks.
p.59 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
Many people who ordered from Amazon got the same delivery date. I expect that Amazon will be able to ship it then.
I am often using Auto ISO with the slowest shutter speed of 1/125.
I prefer changing ISO with the front dial.
Was Boost on or off?
Yup,
I agree, it’s better changing ISO with the front dial after setting the ISO dial to C.
The Fuji rep had difficulty manipulating the ISO dial while using gloves in the mountains.
Unfortunately, I didn’t test with boost on or off. Not enough time.
I just wanted to push the camera to its limits to determine how best to use it.
p.59 #10 · 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 →
Thanks for the comps.
Just to be clear at what I'm looking at ... the FF Sony 35/1.4 GM ... stopped down three stops from a lens the size of:
Diameter: 76mm
Length: 96mm (which is 20mm longer than the GFX 100RF total depth)
Weight: 524g (plus body of choice weight and depth)
p.59 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SrMi wrote:
Why? You can use a hybrid shutter that switches to the electronic shutter, allowing for speeds of up to 1/16000 sec.
Why don't you shoot at ISO 100?
Thanks for the questions.
I did shoot at ISO100 too.
But there was a list on mind that I needed to address:
- minimum shutter speed for sharp images at low light.
- lens sharpness and rendering both wide open and stopped down.’
- ergonomics of using the aspect ratio dial while actively using the camer
- ease of using the ISO/shutter speed dial
Etc.
I have the GFX100S II, so didn’t need to stress test the sensor.
The question about hybrid shutter is a good one. I am not sure how that would work with a leaf shutter and I didn’t think of it.
When get my hands on my own camera I will test it out. I will look up the manual out of curiosity.
p.59 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
I'm looking at this as an upgrade to my Q2 also.
The GFXRF shutter button experience is the same boring soul less leaf shutter experience as the Q series … when comparing to a proper “clunk”. This has been the only thing I’ve hated about my Q2 (and prior X100VI) but now been in many situations where the stealthiness paid off so I accept it. But just wanted to let you know what to expect, and as mentioned, every Fuji I’ve used has a mushy/spongy shutter button so the Q2 feels solid in comparison.
Honestly I think if choosing between a Q3 (used LN $5K and available) and this new Fuji, that’s a tough one. Even tougher if a fan of both Fuji and Leica. 🤣
p.59 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Malick80 wrote:
The GFXRF shutter button experience is the same boring soul less leaf shutter experience as the Q series … when comparing to a proper “clunk”. This has been the only thing I’ve hated about my Q2 (and prior X100VI) but now been in many situations where the stealthiness paid off so I accept it. But just wanted to let you know what to expect, and as mentioned, every Fuji I’ve used has a mushy/spongy shutter button so the Q2 feels solid in comparison.
Honestly I think if choosing between a Q3 (used LN $5K and available) and this new Fuji, that’s a tough one. Even tougher if a fan of both Fuji and Leica. 🤣...Show more →
p.59 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lifeinpictures wrote The question about hybrid shutter is a good one. I am not sure how that would work with a leaf shutter and I didn’t think of it.
When get my hands on my own camera I will test it out. I will look up the manual out of curiosity.
Basically you can have it automatically kick over to the electronic shutter if you need to go faster than 1/4000.
But then have some downsides to electronic shutter (ie rolling shutter).
p.59 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Malick80 wrote:
Basically you can have it automatically kick over to the electronic shutter if you need to go faster than 1/4000.
But then have some downsides to electronic shutter (ie rolling shutter).
That’s the reason, I avoid electronic shutter in most cameras, except the X-H2S which has a stacked sensor.
In the case of the GFX100S II, I use the electronic front curtain shutter sometimes, but never electronic shutter.
p.59 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RustyBug wrote:
[
Thanks for the comps.
Just to be clear at what I'm looking at ... the FF Sony 35/1.4 GM ... stopped down three stops from a lens the size of:
Diameter: 76mm
Length: 96mm (which is 20mm longer than the GFX 100RF total depth)
Weight: 524g (plus body of choice weight and depth)
vs. a MF Pancake.
The RF has the obvious size advantage, especially the pancake lens weight center in the small camera body.
But other thoughts:
GM has f1.4 aperture and extremely sharp even wide open.
I intentionally made crops from the center area (Im interested mainly in cropping ability), and as you saw I represented FF cropped images of RF to match with 35GM+A7RV, in this case not a disadvantage for the RF because cutted of image edges, 35GM had to work on the whole frame. Sure I don't expect from a pancake lens outstanding corner to corner sharpness.
35GM IQ is not a minimum expectation, it is the reference quality in my case.
It was just a quick comparison, I don't expect anybody draw a conclusion, I'm not a professional gear reviewer.
p.59 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I think that if you take the central crop of the FF size from a large camera (8 by 10 inches), it will also lose to the 35GM image. However, if you take the entire images and print them in the same size, the comparison will be very much against the 35GM. So does such a comparison make sense? The quality of the 35GM within the focal lengths of 28-35 is generally 0, since its width is not enough to cover everything. Choose a lens for Sony with a focal length of 28 and then it makes sense to compare the quality. Even in this case, you will be comparing a compact camera with a significantly larger combination. The 100RF is primarily a compact with a 28 equivalent. Its zoom capabilities are secondary. No one will buy the 100RF to shoot exclusively at 35 or 50 focal lengths.
Lukacs wrote:
The RF has the obvious size advantage, especially the pancake lens weight center in the small camera body.
But other thoughts:
GM has f1.4 aperture and extremely sharp even wide open.
I intentionally made crops from the center area (Im interested mainly in cropping ability), and as you saw I represented FF cropped images of RF to match with 35GM+A7RV, in this case not a disadvantage for the RF because cutted of image edges, 35GM had to work on the whole frame. Sure I don't expect from a pancake lens outstanding corner to corner sharpness.
35GM IQ is not a minimum expectation, it is the reference quality in my case.
It was just a quick comparison, I don't expect anybody draw a conclusion, I'm not a professional gear reviewer. ...Show more →
p.59 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Smogg wrote:
I think that if you take the central crop of the FF size from a large camera (8 by 10 inches), it will also lose to the 35GM image. However, if you take the entire images and print them in the same size, the comparison will be very much against the 35GM. So does such a comparison make sense? The quality of the 35GM within the focal lengths of 28-35 is generally 0, since its width is not enough to cover everything. Choose a lens for Sony with a focal length of 28 and then it makes sense to compare the quality. Even in this case, you will be comparing a compact camera with a significantly larger combination. The 100RF is primarily a compact with a 28 equivalent. Its zoom capabilities are secondary. No one will buy the 100RF to shoot exclusively at 35 or 50 focal lengths. ...Show more →
Best thing in RF the 35mm lens on MF sensor. 35mm is an excellent focal length on FF, but it just a bit tight indoors. The problem manufacturers are refusing to make a top tier 28mm lens, you simply go with 24mm or 35mm.
In my experience I'd use 28mm most time (recomposing with my feet instead crop to 35mm), still when I want more compression it's like a 35mm FF inside the camera, and 50mm APS-C.
p.59 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Thus, there is a conveniently sized 100RF with an excellent viewfinder located in the upper left corner, and not in the center (for many, including me, this is important) which can only be considered a competitor to the Leica Q3, since the Sony A7cr viewfinder is no good and Sony does not have a high-quality 28mm lens. Advantages of the Leica Q3: a higher quality and brighter lens. Advantages of the 100RF: a wider dynamic range, fairly high-quality face recognition, tracking, fast switching between different shooting modes, a slightly higher quality EVF (shadows are much better visible), a conveniently implemented digital zoom and crop factor.
Lukacs wrote:
Best thing in RF the 35mm lens on MF sensor. 35mm is an excellent focal length on FF, but it just a bit tight indoors. The problem manufacturers are refusing to make a top tier 28mm lens, you simply go with 24mm or 35mm.
In my experience I'd use 28mm most time (recomposing with my feet instead crop to 35mm), still when I want more compression it's like a 35mm FF inside the camera, and 50mm APS-C.
