p.69 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Mirrorless cameras are themselves a niche market compared to phones…does not stop people from buying and enjoying their niche. Funny how the Leica Q3 niche camera was the driver in Leica’s record sales revenues.
Let’s not even kid ourselves…Fuji is basically a niche provider with its revenue market share less than 10%
Why does it really matter if the GFX100rf does not sell as many units as the Sony a6600 or that many people won’t get the full benefit of 100mpix…as long as they enjoy their hobby.
A few people still trying hard to put down this camera…even though they have zero interest. The beat goes on..
p.69 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
As a person owned a Sigma DP2M as an only camera for two years, finding the GFX100RF an extremely versatile device.
The solution is another camera, I'd consider an A7III with fast prime lens for low light and narrow DOF shots. For portability and camera handling, shooting experience (EVF quality, high resolution tilt LCD resting in the camera surface, leaf shutter) combined with the IQ the RF is unmatched on the market.
The solution of adding it to another camera is very appealing. I've been carrying it, a Zf, CV15 and SE40 in a small ONA sling. It basically takes up the space of a lens slot.
p.69 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
anthonysemone wrote: looking at www.jonasraskphotograpy.com, I'd reckon he is indeed within the range of the small minority of photographers who is skilled enough such that the absence of IBIS, etc., matters not one whit…
Oh, c’mon. Suggesting that thinking IBIS is a good and useful feature does not mean that a photographer is not “skilled enough” to photograph without IBIS. That’s insulting nonsense. Actually it should be embarrassing to make such a naive statement.
I photographed for decades without any kind of image stabilization, and it wasn’t until a couple of years ago that I had a camera with IBIS. I’m “skilled enough” to make photographs without IBIS, but I’m also skilled enough and smart enough to recognize that IBIS is an incredibly useful addition to modern cameras that comes with essentially no significant downside… and it makes me a better photographer. (Just last night i was doing handheld night photography in a city I’m currently visiting and was able to use shutter speeds down to around 1/4 second or so in shots that didn’t include moving people.)
The absence of IBIS matters several whits to lots of photographers, including those of us who worked without it for years and who recognize that it, like auto-focus, auto-exposure, lens IS, digital sensors, and more have improved our ability to make photographs.
p.69 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I’ve been shooting the 100RF for over a week in Mexico City and I regret to inform y’all that it’s very good. $5,000 good? Not for me, but if I were the kind of person who could drop that kind of cash I’d be tempted.
My main complaint is what you’d expect: f/4 is limiting in some conditions (like the anthropology museum) and it’ll never be a bokeh machine. I’d love it if Fuji could figure out auto-ND, too. And finally, the power switch could be a bit stiffer—it keeps getting tripped in my bag.
That said, battery life is great, IQ is great, handling is surprisingly great, and I find the size to be perfect for my hands. I’m also absolutely loving the aspect ratio dial, which I didn’t expect.
I’ll post lots of samples when I get home next week. (Didn’t bring my laptop.)
p.69 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Let me preface this by saying I mean no offense to any of the photographers who have posted in this thread, there is nothing wrong with your work and it would be great on any camera - I am purely sharing my critique of imaging characteristics of the camera as I see them.
Am I the only one to notice that the RF images look very sterile/digital? I am a fan of both film and digital but I like an organic or perhaps 'imperfect' rendering that can appear characterful. It may be that the right lighting has not presented itself to the early adopters, but the majority of photos - other than sharpness/resolution - look like they could have been shot on an iphone.
If I'm way off the mark, or others disagree with me, please, share images that show some interesting rendering, or feel free to link me to a collection somewhere. It just seems like the camera is a little soulless.
p.69 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I see the same people continue to piss inside the communal sandbox, so I won't stay long. But still, having spent two weeks with the camera and hundreds of shots, I wanted to report on and finish what I started.
My theory was that you could convert extraneous megapixels (at least for me) into better ultra-high ISO performance (ISO12,800+).
These two are at effective ISO25,600 (shot at ISO12,800 then +1 exposure in LR), with careful denoising applied before resizing for output. I would say it is meaningfully more than a stop better than my M10-P at ISO12,500, which is more than a stop better than my GRIII at ISO6400. All of which they need to be, given depth of field equivalency necessitating higher ISOs as the sensor gets larger. So there are meaningful gains there even after taking that into account.
Also the main reason I got the camera, to shoot in 4:3 and X-Pan, has played out. The camera simply does not get in the way of changing aspect ratios while shooting the way every other Fuji camera (or any other camera I have used) do. I remapped it to a control dial -- the actual dial, while cute, is too stiff and non-ergonomic to be useful to me. These are all 65:24, but I shot plenty of more traditional 4:3, 16:9, even some 1:1.
This camera does it all with traditional-style framelines in the quite nice EVF (with dynamically adjusting 9x9 gridlines for easy rule of thirds) and without taking you away from the camera and shooting experience. For a street shooter, the camera does not get in the way of changing aspect ratio, on the fly, between shots.
These are straight from camera JPGs (small size).
I remain firm in my original point from my first post in this thread. Those who focus solely on image quality from a detail perspective miss the other advantages medium format and this camera have to offer. Namely, cropping, and surprisingly, better higher ISO performance through sacrificing some extraneous detail (for those of us who don't take advantage of it) for denoising. No other camera has this UI or viewfinder experience today.
p.69 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
thrice wrote:
Let me preface this by saying I mean no offense to any of the photographers who have posted in this thread, there is nothing wrong with your work and it would be great on any camera - I am purely sharing my critique of imaging characteristics of the camera as I see them.
Am I the only one to notice that the RF images look very sterile/digital? I am a fan of both film and digital but I like an organic or perhaps 'imperfect' rendering that can appear characterful. It may be that the right lighting has not presented itself to the early adopters, but the majority of photos - other than sharpness/resolution - look like they could have been shot on an iphone.
If I'm way off the mark, or others disagree with me, please, share images that show some interesting rendering, or feel free to link me to a collection somewhere. It just seems like the camera is a little soulless....Show more →
I've been saying this since the first samples came out. Not really a camera that you can rely on to make your images interesting, as examples here and elsewhere have proved. The photographer has to do that. It's the Leica problem
Every photo presented thus far as a best case scenario is decidedly middling to my eye compared to what you could get for the same money elsewhere.
p.69 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
Oh, c’mon. Suggesting that thinking IBIS is a good and useful feature does not mean that a photographer is not “skilled enough” to photograph without IBIS. That’s insulting nonsense. Actually it should be embarrassing to make such a naive statement.
I photographed for decades without any kind of image stabilization, and it wasn’t until a couple of years ago that I had a camera with IBIS. I’m “skilled enough” to make photographs without IBIS, but I’m also skilled enough and smart enough to recognize that IBIS is an incredibly useful addition to modern cameras that comes with essentially no significant downside… and it makes me a better photographer. (Just last night i was doing handheld night photography in a city I’m currently visiting and was able to use shutter speeds down to around 1/4 second or so in shots that didn’t include moving people.)
The absence of IBIS matters several whits to lots of photographers, including those of us who worked without it for years and who recognize that it, like auto-focus, auto-exposure, lens IS, digital sensors, and more have improved our ability to make photographs. ...Show more →
Agree with regard to your skills - but disagree that IBIS comes with no downside. IBIS works when nothing moves in the frame. But if there is movement, there can be unwanted consequences where the camera just overreacts with IBIS. Same with flash. If you leave IBIS on when using flash, the result can be soft or funny looking images. So one always has to remember whether IBIS in "on" or "off", and to switch it off if there are moving subjects in the frame or the flash ist on.
p.69 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I see that you are trading your Fuji MF for Hasselblad? Why are you switching, is Fuji MF also sterile/digital?
RoamingScott wrote:
I've been saying this since the first samples came out. Not really a camera that you can rely on to make your images interesting, as examples here and elsewhere have proved. The photographer has to do that. It's the Leica problem
Every photo presented thus far as a best case scenario is decidedly middling to my eye compared to what you could get for the same money elsewhere.
p.69 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
thrice wrote:
Let me preface this by saying I mean no offense to any of the photographers who have posted in this thread, there is nothing wrong with your work and it would be great on any camera - I am purely sharing my critique of imaging characteristics of the camera as I see them.
Am I the only one to notice that the RF images look very sterile/digital? I am a fan of both film and digital but I like an organic or perhaps 'imperfect' rendering that can appear characterful. It may be that the right lighting has not presented itself to the early adopters, but the majority of photos - other than sharpness/resolution - look like they could have been shot on an iphone.
If I'm way off the mark, or others disagree with me, please, share images that show some interesting rendering, or feel free to link me to a collection somewhere. It just seems like the camera is a little soulless....Show more →
You won't see too much special in a 28mm F3.2 lens images. It's a documentary lens, not artistic. The composition should be artistic. Technically it's about pure resolution and dynamic range of a MF sensor. If you are after special look even if you just take picture a piece of garbage on the street, either super fast 1.2 lens or a telephoto is far better option. You don't need the light for the look, you don't need composition. Telephoto compression or the extreme background separation do the job.
p.69 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I've been saying this since the first samples came out. Not really a camera that you can rely on to make your images interesting, as examples here and elsewhere have proved. The photographer has to do that. It's the Leica problem
Every photo presented thus far as a best case scenario is decidedly middling to my eye compared to what you could get for the same money elsewhere.
Oh my God…you mean a photographer’s skill makes the image…not the camera.
p.69 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
thrice wrote:
Let me preface this by saying I mean no offense to any of the photographers who have posted in this thread, there is nothing wrong with your work and it would be great on any camera - I am purely sharing my critique of imaging characteristics of the camera as I see them.
Am I the only one to notice that the RF images look very sterile/digital? I am a fan of both film and digital but I like an organic or perhaps 'imperfect' rendering that can appear characterful. It may be that the right lighting has not presented itself to the early adopters, but the majority of photos - other than sharpness/resolution - look like they could have been shot on an iphone.
If I'm way off the mark, or others disagree with me, please, share images that show some interesting rendering, or feel free to link me to a collection somewhere. It just seems like the camera is a little soulless....Show more →
I suspect that it is a matter of processing choices, that bring the rendering you're seeing. I saw some comps a fellow member shared with me regarding the GFX 100RF vs. the Hassy 38/2.5 (not at liberty to share) that I mentioned before. In those comps, the GFX100RF sooc/raw seemed more "organic" ... by a small, but detectable amount.
The irony being that some folks would call them out for "lacking micro-contrast", while others are calling the processed shots digital / clinical. I think that as folks learn more about what Fuji has done. they'll come to understand the workflow / process that gives them what they desire from its (maleable) files.
One thing is for sure, this camera seems to be one that is very polarizing for folks ... especially "on paper" for those folks who haven't had the opportunity to actually use it, yet ... and come to understand how it plays into (or not) their workflow / goals.
p.69 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
A camera can't be all things. For me the GFX100RF would make a wonderful landscape camera if the ~28mm FL is your choice. For street and everything else there are better choices.
p.69 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Every photo presented thus far as a best case scenario is decidedly middling to my eye compared to what you could get for the same money elsewhere.
Did you ever take a pic / process / print (large) with the one you bought? Did you learn or revise anything about how you'd approach your work, from what you learned from using your GFX 100RF. Or, are you merely judging from website postings?
In the hands of Scott, we should be able to find out the limits of what true excellence and capability of the GFX 100RF looks like ... right?
?? 
