p.82 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Geoff D F wrote:
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.
You, also, are making my point for the “limited use case” description.
p.82 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Every single setup has limited use case. With fast prime you don't have the flexibility of zoom lens, with zoom lens you don't have fast prime low light ability, with wide angle zoom don't have telephoto, etc...
This argument makes no sense to me.
p.82 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
Every single setup has limited use case. With fast prime you don't have the flexibility of zoom lens, with zoom lens you don't have fast prime low light ability, with wide angle zoom don't have telephoto, etc...
This argument makes no sense to me.
I’ll grant you that no system is without its limits. But I’m surprised that the point makes “no sense” to you.
My point here is that, to use landscape photography as an example (as you did) is that while this camera can make a fine landscape photograph at one wide focal length on a tripod, very few landscape photographers limit themselves to a single very wide angle lens… or purchase a high resolution camera expecting to throw away a whole lot of those pixels when they need a narrower angle of view.
From a landscape photography perspective, that is a very limited use case. (If you are something of a landscape photogarphy outlier and you actually do prefer to always shoot at this single wide focal length and you are fine with losing that 100MP resolution when you need a longer focal length, than you fit that limited use case scenario.)
Having a limited use case doesn’t mean that the camera is no good. It would be very good for those whose needs fit that limited use case, but unlike cameras with things like larger aperture, interchangeable lenses, IBIS, etc… the number of situations for which it is optimal is quite limited.
p.82 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
Yes this is the reason most photographers has multiple cameras with multiple lenses.
Which, again, reinforces my point about limited use cases. :-)
Oct 28, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.82 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ll grant you that no system is without its limits. But I’m surprised that the point makes “no sense” to you.
My point here is that, to use landscape photography as an example (as you did) is that while this camera can make a fine landscape photograph at one wide focal length on a tripod, very few landscape photographers limit themselves to a single very wide angle lens… or purchase a high resolution camera expecting to throw away a whole lot of those pixels when they need a narrower angle of view.
From a landscape photography perspective, that is a very limited use case. (If you are something of a landscape photogarphy outlier and you actually do prefer to always shoot at this single wide focal length and you are fine with losing that 100MP resolution when you need a longer focal length, than you fit that limited use case scenario.)
Having a limited use case doesn’t mean that the camera is no good. It would be very good for those whose needs fit that limited use case, but unlike cameras with things like larger aperture, interchangeable lenses, IBIS, etc… the number of situations for which it is optimal is quite limited....Show more →
It is a fixed lens camera, of course that limits how the camera can be used. For such a camera I don't think it makes sense to think when it is optimal. The fixed lens will of course lead to only a small number of uses for which it is optimal, and very few people would ever consider a fixed lens camera if they only would use it for the things for which it is optimal.
Instead, I think people want a fixed lens camera because it is small and relatively easy to use compared to an ILC (no having to fiddle with changing lens, which does matter to some people even if it doesn't matter really at all to me). If you are selecting a camera because it is small and relatively easy to use the question becomes for what uses is its performance acceptable. That is a really different question than for what uses is it optimal. If you are willing to use an APS-C sized portion of the sensor, then this camera becomes a lot like the GFX 50r with the 35-70 f/4-5.6 zoom attached, but it has a better sensor at the wide end and at the long end it only has the depth of field of an f/8 lens.
Part of the reason that I would like to see this camera with an f/2.8 lens instead of the f/4 lens is that it would still be significantly smaller and clearly better at the wide end than that camera and lens combination, and less limited and in some ways just as good on the long end. Even as it is now, however, it clearly works for a lot of people and serves them in enough circumstances that they find the size and capabilities enough. Sure it is optimal for only a very small number of things, but it is good enough for enough things to be compelling to a lot of people. I am not one of them, but I can see why some would like it.
p.82 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I guess we could all go and buy full frame camera with a zoom trio covering all focal length out to 400 or 500mm's. Then we could tell everybody else that their gear was a "limited use case". To me, the fun is in the narrow use cases. You could say the whole Gfx line is limited use case. My prime 110, 135, 140, and 210 are all limited use case. I love shooting with them. Same for my old Contax 35mm that has worse image quality than my 20-35 zoom. I keep it because that limited use case inspires me to make photos.
p.82 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
You, also, are making my point for the “limited use case” description.
:-)
Yes I was largely agreeing with you. I think you once said "extremely limited" use case, to which i would take umbrage but I can agree on "limited" use case.
p.82 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
SGinNorcal wrote:
I guess we could all go and buy full frame camera with a zoom trio covering all focal length out to 400 or 500mm's. Then we could tell everybody else that their gear was a "limited use case". To me, the fun is in the narrow use cases. You could say the whole Gfx line is limited use case. My prime 110, 135, 140, and 210 are all limited use case. I love shooting with them. Same for my old Contax 35mm that has worse image quality than my 20-35 zoom. I keep it because that limited use case inspires me to make photos....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is a fixed lens camera, of course that limits how the camera can be used. For such a camera I don't think it makes sense to think when it is optimal. The fixed lens will of course lead to only a small number of uses for which it is optimal, and very few people would ever consider a fixed lens camera if they only would use it for the things for which it is optimal.
Instead, I think people want a fixed lens camera because it is small and relatively easy to use compared to an ILC (no having to fiddle with changing lens, which does matter to some people even if it doesn't matter really at all to me). If you are selecting a camera because it is small and relatively easy to use the question becomes for what uses is its performance acceptable. That is a really different question than for what uses is it optimal. If you are willing to use an APS-C sized portion of the sensor, then this camera becomes a lot like the GFX 50r with the 35-70 f/4-5.6 zoom attached, but it has a better sensor at the wide end and at the long end it only has the depth of field of an f/8 lens.
Part of the reason that I would like to see this camera with an f/2.8 lens instead of the f/4 lens is that it would still be significantly smaller and clearly better at the wide end than that camera and lens combination, and less limited and in some ways just as good on the long end. Even as it is now, however, it clearly works for a lot of people and serves them in enough circumstances that they find the size and capabilities enough. Sure it is optimal for only a very small number of things, but it is good enough for enough things to be compelling to a lot of people. I am not one of them, but I can see why some would like it....Show more →
p.82 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I can certainly understand the desirability of having a small camera. The puzzling thing about the 100RF is combining the small body with the big sensor, which then led to an F4 lens and no IBIS.
Fuji could have built an EVF only X100 with an aspect ratio dial, 28mm lens and the ability to digitally crop to around 50mm. It could have had an f2.8 lens and IBIS and been less than half the price of the 100RF. That would have been much more desirable at least to me.
p.82 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Geoff D F wrote:
I can certainly understand the desirability of having a small camera. The puzzling thing about the 100RF is combining the small body with the big sensor, which then led to an F4 lens and no IBIS.
Fuji could have built an EVF only X100 with an aspect ratio dial, 28mm lens and the ability to digitally crop to around 50mm. It could have had an f2.8 lens and IBIS and been less than half the price of the 100RF. That would have been much more desirable at least to me.
Anyway, I still commend Fuji for being different.
GFX100RF purpose is a 100MP, ultra high resolution compact camera. F2.8 lens and IBIS would add only significant bulk to the camera, without significant better usability. I seriously doubt that a high resolution f2.8 (which is only 1 stop difference) and IBIS won't add a massive bump for this camera, just check the size some f2.8 medium format lens which has excellent sharpness wide open. This camera strength is the compactness with the ability of capturing high resolution images in sufficient lighting conditions.
I wouldn't care any f2.8 apsc fixed lens camera, only Ricoh GR because of the pocketability. I skipped X100 series, because I just can't see the technical advantage over a bunch of ILCE option, while the emotional aspect of that camera is not strong enough (the analogue feel). GFX100RF is quite different, because there are no option come even close this resolution and DR paired in such compact setup. This camera is the medium format Ricoh GR, without competition. If somebody only accept f2.8 and IBIS, there is the GFX100SII, or a X2D2 if can afford it with an f2.8 expensive system lens.
p.82 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
GFX100RF purpose is a 100MP, ultra high resolution compact camera. F2.8 lens and IBIS would add only significant bulk to the camera, without significant better usability. I seriously doubt that a high resolution f2.8 (which is only 1 stop difference) and IBIS won't add a massive bump for this camera, just check the size some f2.8 medium format lens which has excellent sharpness wide open. This camera strength is the compactness with the ability of capturing high resolution images in sufficient lighting conditions.
I wouldn't care any f2.8 apsc fixed lens camera, only Ricoh GR because of the pocketability. I skipped X100 series, because I just can't see the technical advantage over a bunch of ILCE option, while the emotional aspect of that camera is not strong enough (the analogue feel). GFX100RF is quite different, because there are no option come even close this resolution and DR paired in such compact setup. This camera is the medium format Ricoh GR, without competition. If somebody only accept f2.8 and IBIS, there is the GFX100SII, or a X2D2 if can afford it with an f2.8 expensive system lens....Show more →
No need. I went for the GFX 50sii. I thought about the 100RF but decided that it was really intended for casual shooting, and then thought how infrequent it would be that I want a casual shooter with 100mp. But if others like it then that's great.
p.82 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Been enjoying my gfx100rf for some time. The 100 MP is overkill, but it really does make some details look so nice, such as trees in the background. With that much MP though, cropping in a little still provides so much detail. In post, editing the RAW files is so nice, especially when bringing down highlights or turning up shadows. In daylight, the F4 and lack of IBIS is no issue as I keep shutter speeds higher than 1/125 usually. For indoor scenarios though, I would say that the F4 feels a little constraining, but the sensor's nice noise grain along with DxO PureRaw has been working well for me to some degree.
Video for whatever reason in 4k 30p (Flog2) or whatnot just seems awful (like it has a chalky layer), but it's not really a video camera, so I can't fault it. The electronic stabilization works well to some degree also, as long as you aren't walking while shooting video as there's the weird motion blur jitter. Still, I wouldn't use it for video much.
The compact size is great as I can fit it in an ALPAKA Metro Sling V2 (though I've cut the layer between the two pockets so that the lens fits through it. I'm able to put both my iphone 15 pro and gfx100rf in that sling (though quite tight), but this kit covers high quality stills (gfx) and decent 4k60p from the iphone with blackmagic camera app. I do family stills and video, so this setup has been great. This is with the Haoge MC UV lens filter that doesnt require the gfx adapter, and then I use it with the OEM lens cap that fits over it.
p.82 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
hsiunghsiung wrote:
Video for whatever reason in 4k 30p (Flog2) or whatnot just seems awful (like it has a chalky layer), but it's not really a video camera, so I can't fault it. The electronic stabilization works well to some degree also, as long as you aren't walking while
My guess is that the "chalky" look is because you are shooting in Flog. Flog is a gamma curve/profile that records a large dynamic range. The washed out look protects highlights and shadows, but you have to convert it to an output profile before watching the video. You have to change the video settings to record video to one of the film simulations if you want to watch straight out of the camera.
p.82 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Geoff D F wrote:
I can certainly understand the desirability of having a small camera. The puzzling thing about the 100RF is combining the small body with the big sensor, which then led to an F4 lens and no IBIS.
Fuji could have built an EVF only X100 with an aspect ratio dial, 28mm lens and the ability to digitally crop to around 50mm. It could have had an f2.8 lens and IBIS and been less than half the price of the 100RF. That would have been much more desirable at least to me.
Anyway, I still commend Fuji for being different.
Maybe Sony or Canon will eventually make the camera you described. Or Nikon will somehow revitalize the Coolpix A they abandoned after the original version. So many cameras one can potentially want
After 13k pics with 100RF I am surprised how flexible it is even in situations where f/4 and no IBIS should be a problem. Partly this is because the camera is very stable to shoot (I use the very comfy Smallrig plate/grip), and partly because high ISO performance is so good (when below ISO3200 I just do not care). 100mp resolution is nice to have in those have for those occasions when 28mm env lens is too wide (although basically I hate cropping much).
Or maybe it is not about the camera being flexible. It is quite possible that it is so fun that I happily live within its limitations. Either way, no real problem for me.
My advice is that one should give the GFX100RF some time before bashing it - or loving it. Armchair speculation does not work with this camera, it is so different. I also want toi emphasize that technically or economically it does not make much sense. A7r5 does 90% of the same job and is so much more flexible and reliable. And when showing images 4k or smaller size X100V is practically the same.
My advice to anybody who thinks GFX100RF is too expensive, somehow flawed or just too weird, is to go on and use other cameras. There is a place for this camera although it is not for everybody or every occasion.
BTW I am not going to tell you which of the following pics is shot with iPhone 15 Pro
p.82 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Has anyone replaced a X100VI with this? Or have any recent thoughts with the price being $5.6K new? I want to get it since I wanted a smaller camera that I can take with me (versus my Nikon Z8) but the price and limit of the fixed lens have me thinking.
I've used a Mamiya 6 in the past so the lack of IBIS and f/4 lens doesn't bother me as much, since I loved how portable that camera was.
p.82 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
macwest wrote:
the street corner red stripe phone pic
Yes
nhlducks35 wrote:
Has anyone replaced a X100VI with this? Or have any recent thoughts with the price being $5.6K new? I want to get it since I wanted a smaller camera that I can take with me (versus my Nikon Z8) but the price and limit of the fixed lens have me thinking.
I've used a Mamiya 6 in the past so the lack of IBIS and f/4 lens doesn't bother me as much, since I loved how portable that camera was.
If one wants a small camera and do not necessarily want MF Fuji, and 35mm FOV is not a problem, the latest version of Sony RX1 might be worth considering.
