p.81 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
For some people, the main benefit is the high pixel count as this allows them to make larger prints. For those people, the example is not a jpg posted at forum resolution, instead it is a print that is hanging on a wall.
True, but…
It is kind of hard to share a print here. (I once posted scans of a print and suggested people print it to see the capabilities of a different system, but few took me up on it.
In my view, the quaintly of a print is more important than the quality of a jpg. That’s partly because of its physical reality, which helps us get past all of the theoretical stuff that dominates so many photography discussions and often verges into the “how many angels dance on the head of this pin” territory.
On the other hand, I’ll bet that most people in this forum print extremely rarely if at all, and for them the quality obtainable from particular gear should be evaluated that way. Which, of course, suggests and even lower standard for things like resolution given the likelihood that they’ll be viewing their files at even smaller sizes.
As lovely as some of the miniMF image sourced jpgs look in these threads, I can guarantee that if we dropped well shot and post-processed images from a contemporary Fujifilm APS-C camera into the thread alongside them that virtually no one (if not literally no one) would be able to tell which were which.
Prints? Potentially a different story once you get into and above the 20” x 30” territory, though here you would not be able to tell between a high MP FF image shot, post-processed, and printed skillfully and a 100MP miniMF image until perhaps above the 30” x 45” range and larger… if you knew what to look for and stared long enough. :-)
p.81 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
True, but…
It is kind of hard to share a print here. (I once posted scans of a print and suggested people print it to see the capabilities of a different system, but few took me up on it.
In my view, the quaintly of a print is more important than the quality of a jpg. That’s partly because of its physical reality, which helps us get past all of the theoretical stuff that dominates so many photography discussions and often verges into the “how many angels dance on the head of this pin” territory.
On the other hand, I’ll bet that most people in this forum print extremely rarely if at all, and for them the quality obtainable from particular gear should be evaluated that way. Which, of course, suggests and even lower standard for things like resolution given the likelihood that they’ll be viewing their files at even smaller sizes.
As lovely as some of the miniMF image sourced jpgs look in these threads, I can guarantee that if we dropped well shot and post-processed images from a contemporary Fujifilm APS-C camera into the thread alongside them that virtually no one (if not literally no one) would be able to tell which were which.
Prints? Potentially a different story once you get into and above the 20” x 30” territory, though here you would not be able to tell between a high MP FF image shot, post-processed, and printed skillfully and a 100MP miniMF image until perhaps above the 30” x 45” range and larger… if you knew what to look for and stared long enough. :-)...Show more →
I've said it on another thread but I'll say it here too. We are thinking about this wrong. We should work out what our minimum requirements are. Chances are any APS-c or FF camera in the last 10 years will meet those. And then buy the camera that is most fun, subject to it meeting those minimum requirements. The 100RF isn't desirable because it can do things other cameras can't, but I can see why it would be more fun in some circumstances, albeit expensive.
p.81 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I've said it on another thread but I'll say it here too. We are thinking about this wrong. We should work out what our minimum requirements are. Chances are any APS-c or FF camera in the last 10 years will meet those. And then buy the camera that is most fun, subject to it meeting those minimum requirements. The 100RF isn't desirable because it can do things other cameras can't, but I can see why it would be more fun in some circumstances, albeit expensive.
Yes, you have the correct view here. This same view equally applies to just about any purchase in our lives from our houses and furniture to our vehicles or in fact TV sets and computers. We don’t buy the bare minimum that meets our goals, we buy things that make us feel good.
p.81 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
When the criterion is “more fun,” just say so. No need then to say that it is because it will make better photographs, right? :-)
Indeed, there are folks with enough money to just buy stuff because it feels good to have it. Without getting into a discussion of whether or not that is a good thing — it is complicated — a lot of folks doing photography don’t have unlimited funds to buy stuff just for the heck of it. They are looking for gear that does what they need it to do and which produces the photographs that they plan to make. That’s pretty much the way that professional photographers that I know look at gear, FWIW.thats
And “what camera to I feel good using” is quite a different question than what is the best camera for a given photographer for a given use.
Geoff D F wrote:
I've said it on another thread but I'll say it here too. We are thinking about this wrong. We should work out what our minimum requirements are. Chances are any APS-c or FF camera in the last 10 years will meet those. And then buy the camera that is most fun, subject to it meeting those minimum requirements. The 100RF isn't desirable because it can do things other cameras can't, but I can see why it would be more fun in some circumstances, albeit expensive.
p.81 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
When the criterion is “more fun,” just say so. No need then to say that it is because it will make better photographs, right? :-)
Indeed, there are folks with enough money to just buy stuff because it feels good to have it. Without getting into a discussion of whether or not that is a good thing — it is complicated — a lot of folks doing photography don’t have unlimited funds to buy stuff just for the heck of it. They are looking for gear that does what they need it to do and which produces the photographs that they plan to make. That’s pretty much the way that professional photographers that I know look at gear, FWIW.thats
And “what camera to I feel good using” is quite a different question than what is the best camera for a given photographer for a given use.
I think many if us would think we will make better photos with a camera we enjoy using. As a musician you would know an instrument you enjoy playing you will play better than one you don't. And I don't think you can treat the camera as a completely independent system from the photographer. What is best is a pointless argument unless we define what a photographer's priorities are. Resolution, portability, price, AF reliability, FPS, fun factor? Most pros will have requirements that will lead them to Canon, Sony and Nikon. Using the criteria pros use to criticise the RF, the GFX system, Leica, etc misses the point in my view.
p.81 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Some of us want far more versatility and usability for our coin.
"Versatility" is different for every individual. GFX100RF is really versatile. It's small and unobtrusive, easy to pack in, even I can fit into my jacket pocket (without the adapter and hood). Leaf shutter is silent. 28mm is a really good focal length, wide enough for indoors, not too wide outdoors. In good light you have a small and light camera capable of 100MP resolution paired high DR, 50mm FOV with 33MP, and in low light the sensor's DR can compensate quite good the F4 aperture, with downsizing to still good 16-24MP.
p.81 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
If you want to take landscapes on a tripod at 28mm and nothing but, no doubt, the RF will do you well.
Some of us want far more versatility and usability for our coin.
I largely agree. I think the RF could be an inspiring camera to use, albeit it has significant limitations and a hefty price tag. Still, I like that Fuji produces products that are different and doesn't aim to be Sony/Canon/Nikon.
p.81 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
saxguy wrote:
I'm so torn on this. I like the idea and I'm sure the images will be great under the right circumdstances. The lack of IBIS may be a real issue - 100MP image with the GFX100RF without stabilization vs the 60MP image of a Q3 with IBIS and a wider aperture when faster shutter speeds are needed is something I think about.
I agree but I'm not torn. No IBIS, f4.0 are keeping me from looking seriously. I'm shooting Q2, Q3 and Q3 43 and would love to see this 35mm with a 1.7 or 2.0 lens and stabilization in a camera this price is a definite requirement.
p.81 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
DenverSteve wrote:
I agree but I'm not torn. No IBIS, f4.0 are keeping me from looking seriously. I'm shooting Q2, Q3 and Q3 43 and would love to see this 35mm with a 1.7 or 2.0 lens and stabilization in a camera this price is a definite requirement.
With an f2 lens and IBIS this camera would be barely smaller than GFX100SII but with restriction of a fixed lens. What is the benefit?
I keep using my GF100RF almost daily, because it's small and light. I'd barely use and wouldn't enjoy a GFX100SII + 35 f1.7 at all. I have Sony (currently A7CR) and 35GM, because I also can't give up to have lot of subject separation on mid and long distances, still I pick 100RF almost every time when go out shooting because the size and weight.
Oct 27, 2025 at 04:47 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.81 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
With an f2 lens and IBIS this camera would be barely smaller than GFX100SII but with restriction of a fixed lens. What is the benefit?
I keep using my GF100RF almost daily, because it's small and light. I'd barely use and wouldn't enjoy a GFX100SII + 35 f1.7 at all. I have Sony (currently A7CR) and 35GM, because I also can't give up to have lot of subject separation on mid and long distances, still I pick 100RF almost every time when go out shooting because the size and weight.
I think an f/2 or f/1.7 lens would result in a really large camera, but I am not convinced that an f/2.8 lens and including image stabilization of the lens or the sensor would not have made sense. Yeah, the camera might have had to be bigger, but I am not sure it would have had to be much bigger and that extra stop in shallower depth of field and when light is low would have been really welcomed. It would allow the camera to compete on those fronts with the Leica Q's and the Sony RX1 III a lot better. Of course it would compete worse in size, so definitely a tradeoff, but personally I would have liked to see Fuji strike the middle ground with an f/2.8 lens on this camera.
p.81 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
My position from the beginning has been that this product is an example of some impressive technology (most obviously putting the big sensor in the small package)… but that its real-world use case is extremely limited given the f/4 maximum aperture, the very wide angle fixed focal length, the lack if IBIS, the limited need for the extreme high resolution sensor, and the very high price.
Again, there is a use case for it, but it is limited. It is hard to see how this is an ideal camera for some of the buyers I read about — such as folks getting it for their vacation or travel camera or for landscape photography or making portraits. Yes, you can do those things with this (or by that standard, virtually any) camera, but few photographers will find it ideal for those purposes.
p.81 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think an f/2 or f/1.7 lens would result in a really large camera, but I am not convinced that an f/2.8 lens and including image stabilization of the lens or the sensor would not have made sense. Yeah, the camera might have had to be bigger, but I am not sure it would have had to be much bigger and that extra stop in shallower depth of field and when light is low would have been really welcomed. It would allow the camera to compete on those fronts with the Leica Q's and the Sony RX1 III a lot better. Of course it would compete worse in size, so definitely a tradeoff, but personally I would have liked to see Fuji strike the middle ground with an f/2.8 lens on this camera....Show more →
I can't estimate the size with IBIS and f2.8 lens because there are no competition. Here is a comparison with GFX100SII with 45 f2.8 and X2D2 with 38 f2.5. It's not even a comparison, GFX100RF in different league. I don't think Fuji intend to compete with Q3. I'd say Q3 is more versatile, but the problem is the lack of proper AF-C capability, and since it's barely smaller than an ILCE FF option I've never took it into serious consideration. I got an A7CR with Viltrox 50 F2, provides the same IQ as Q3 43 but with excellent eye tracking and fraction of the price. Also I love 100MP and the +1 stop DR over FF sensor in good light it's make certain difference to me, while the camera compact enough to carry around almost everywhere.
p.81 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
My position from the beginning has been that this product is an example of some impressive technology (most obviously putting the big sensor in the small package)… but that its real-world use case is extremely limited given the f/4 maximum aperture, the very wide angle fixed focal length, the lack if IBIS, the limited need for the extreme high resolution sensor, and the very high price.
Again, there is a use case for it, but it is limited. It is hard to see how this is an ideal camera for some of the buyers I read about — such as folks getting it for their vacation or travel camera or for landscape photography or making portraits. Yes, you can do those things with this (or by that standard, virtually any) camera, but few photographers will find it ideal for those purposes....Show more →
I don't agree in limited usecase, I took more than 12000 shots with my GFX100RF, in lot of situation. There are no such small camera with this landscape capability, if you want small 28mm eqv. landscape camera this is the best you can get for your money. In other usecases there are lot of and lot cheaper solutions with same and even better IQ, obviously for example for primary low light portraits it's a huge waste, but it can handle it with pretty good results.
p.81 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
I don't agree in limited usecase, I took more than 12000 shots with my GFX100RF, in lot of situation. There are no such small camera with this landscape capability, if you want small 28mm eqv. landscape camera this is the best you can get for your money.
That is literally a “limited use case.”
In other usecases there are lot of and lot cheaper solutions with same and even better IQ, obviously for example for primary low light portraits it's a huge waste, but it can handle it with pretty good results.
p.81 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
For some people, the main benefit is the high pixel count as this allows them to make larger prints. )
I never think about making a larger print in my "wants" for a camera. Not negating your premise at all Scott. I equate hi mpx to more data stored in "a" pixel. I just never thought about the size of the image file to a printed photo in selecting a body.
Do these 2 premises overlap in one's thinking? Above my "pay grade"
IBIS is a must for me and even more so with a OIS/IS lens. I have hand tremors and these features even the playing field.
Good discussion.
Dan
p.81 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is literally a “limited use case.”
Overall, your reply supports my point.
We could get into semantics about what a limited use case is. For me I could see it covering about 50 per cent of my needs for landscape and travel, but if I have to carry another camera I might as well carry an ILC and a few lenses and have all my needs covered. As I see it, the 100RF is an X100 on steroids and fits within that niche. The 100mp allows for more cropping than the X100, widening its use case a bit, but at a pretty significant cost increase.
Oct 28, 2025 at 02:43 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.81 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
I can't estimate the size with IBIS and f2.8 lens because there are no competition. Here is a comparison with GFX100SII with 45 f2.8 and X2D2 with 38 f2.5. It's not even a comparison, GFX100RF in different league. I don't think Fuji intend to compete with Q3. I'd say Q3 is more versatile, but the problem is the lack of proper AF-C capability, and since it's barely smaller than an ILCE FF option I've never took it into serious consideration. I got an A7CR with Viltrox 50 F2, provides the same IQ as Q3 43 but with excellent eye tracking and fraction of the price. Also I love 100MP and the +1 stop DR over FF sensor in good light it's make certain difference to me, while the camera compact enough to carry around almost everywhere. ...Show more →
Well, if they used an f/2.8 lens they obviously wouldn't use a body like the GFX 100S II, they would use a small body like the current camera. It isn't that hard to estimate the size increase by doing so, or at least I don't think it is. I think you would get a lens that makes the camera about 10-to 15 mm deeper and you would gain about 100 to 150g. The package would be bigger, but still fairly small and the 80mm crop (a 2.3 X crop) would in my view be a lot more useful with a bit more bokeh when wanted. Personally, I would want to shoot this camera a fair bit using the 80mm crop, so that would matter to me.
I understand why Fuji used the f/4 lens, however. That allowed the camera to be smaller and for a lot of folks it is already on the big side for this type of camera and if they would have gone with the camera I am suggesting I am sure a lot of people would have complained about the size being too big.
The advantage of the big 44 X 33 sensor is that you can crop more and still have a decent sized part of the sensor you are using, but the disadvantage is that it is hard to keep the camera small with that bigger sensor. As is typical for Fuji they have a small version in the X100 VI with a small sensor, and a larger version with the GFX 100RF, I think given that situation they could have let the large camera be a little larger and people who want small could have used the small camera, but those are just my preferences and obviously not the tradeoffs Fuji was looking for or made.
