Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
p.3 #1Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
I'm still hoping someone compares the gfx100ii without the evf +50mm f3.5 to the gfx100rf. I keep seeing gfx100s (ii) comparisons, but its harder to visualize with the evf sticking out back. I figured the gfx100ii without the evf would have comparable size (besides bigger grip)
Mar 22, 2025 at 09:45 PM
p.3 #2Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
I didnt do any measuring, but just trying to visualize the comparison of the gfx100rf+filterAdapter (I roughly copied and added some of the lens as the adapter to visualize) and gfx100ii without evf and with the 50mm f3.5 (I tried to make my edits noticeable so you can see what was changed). Add a smallrig grip, and the heights might be similar. The main benefit of the rf would prob be the leaf shutter in this case. Besides the gfx100ii not having an evf in this setup that is.
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Mar 22, 2025 at 09:53 PM
p.3 #3Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Wow this perfect design. I've always been happy with the f/3.5 30mm so this is close enough. Probably use this for daytime and nightpod
Mar 22, 2025 at 10:18 PM
p.3 #4Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
gregfountain wrote:
...I'm impressed Fuji pulled this off..
Yes, me too. I admire Fuji for doing this.
...I'm impressed Fuji pulled this off..
Yes, me too. I admire Fuji for doing this.
Mar 23, 2025 at 05:00 AM
p.3 #5Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Makten wrote:
Soooo, how is the "typical" super high geometric distortion that has to be corrected with software?
Are you inferring ... vs. the Summilux?
Soooo, how is the "typical" super high geometric distortion that has to be corrected with software?
Are you inferring ... vs. the Summilux?
Mar 23, 2025 at 08:38 AM
p.3 #6Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Smogg wrote:
Is it possible to use the lens hood without the filter ring?
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-gfx100rf-the-worlds-smallest-100mp-camera/
GFX100RF, M11 & Q3 comparison:
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-takes-a-swing-at-leica-with-the-new-gfx100rf/
GFX100RF depth becomes similar size to Q3 with the filter ring to seal the camera:
https://i0.wp.com/www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fujifilm-gfx100rf_kv_black-back_41.jpg
Is it possible to use the filter ring without the lens hood? I'm thinking the filter ring provides a fair amount of extension, by itself.
Is it possible to use the lens hood without the filter ring?
serhan_ wrote
GFX100RF size comparison to X2D, GFX100S & Q3:https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-gfx100rf-the-worlds-smallest-100mp-camera/
GFX100RF, M11 & Q3 comparison:
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-takes-a-swing-at-leica-with-the-new-gfx100rf/
GFX100RF depth becomes similar size to Q3 with the filter ring to seal the camera:
https://i0.wp.com/www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fujifilm-gfx100rf_kv_black-back_41.jpg
Is it possible to use the filter ring without the lens hood? I'm thinking the filter ring provides a fair amount of extension, by itself.
Mar 23, 2025 at 08:41 AM
p.3 #7Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
I asked this question to the tester and he answered that no, unfortunately. This is a very strange engineering solution. I will wait for a hood from third-party manufacturers.
RustyBug wrote:
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-gfx100rf-the-worlds-smallest-100mp-camera/
GFX100RF, M11 & Q3 comparison:
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-takes-a-swing-at-leica-with-the-new-gfx100rf/
GFX100RF depth becomes similar size to Q3 with the filter ring to seal the camera:
https://i0.wp.com/www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fujifilm-gfx100rf_kv_black-back_41.jpgIs it possible to use the filter ring without the lens hood? I'm thinking the filter ring provides a fair amount of extension, by itself.
RustyBug wrote:
Smogg wrote
Is it possible to use the lens hood without the filter ring?serhan_ wrote
GFX100RF size comparison to X2D, GFX100S & Q3:https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-gfx100rf-the-worlds-smallest-100mp-camera/
GFX100RF, M11 & Q3 comparison:
https://www.captureintegration.com/fujifilm-takes-a-swing-at-leica-with-the-new-gfx100rf/
GFX100RF depth becomes similar size to Q3 with the filter ring to seal the camera:
https://i0.wp.com/www.captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fujifilm-gfx100rf_kv_black-back_41.jpg
Mar 23, 2025 at 08:46 AM
p.3 #8Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RustyBug wrote:
Are you inferring ... vs. the Summilux?
The last part of this post started some sort of debate: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1857491/32#16774228
Edit: I think he's wrong, but we don't know yet.
Makten wrote
Soooo, how is the "typical" super high geometric distortion that has to be corrected with software?The last part of this post started some sort of debate: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1857491/32#16774228
Edit: I think he's wrong, but we don't know yet.
Mar 23, 2025 at 09:56 AM
p.3 #9Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Makten wrote:
Are you inferring ... vs. the Summilux?The last part of this post started some sort of debate: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1857491/32#16774228
Edit: I think he's wrong, but we don't know yet.
I'm with ya on this one.
Looking at that honkin' huge rear element in the 35/4 ... and having shot my pancake 40 Summicron-C, one can hope that the reliance on computational distortion correction is minimal (prefer none), and that the 35/4 is a "recessed" lens with excellent distortion correction. That other conversation about 13% is ... well, my temperament for lens choices is typically under 2%, under 1% all the better. I noticed that when (say Nikon) mfr's started moving to the closer registration of mirrorless, their wider throats, included increased reliance on computational corrections in the wider lenses, as a byproduct of those decisions.
I realize that in the context of the Q's Summilux, the computational aspect of shooting a 26 > 28 is "standard think", my experience with it for architectural aspects, leaves more distortion in play than I often care for. Of late, I've found that shooting it in crop mode 35mm more satisfying, as it mitigates much of the computation distortion adjusted areas.
The computational distortion doesn't seem to be linear, but rather exponential. So, when I end up with rotations or other adjustments, it doesn't pan out quite as easily as it does for simple travel scenes or snaps, etc. (where the 26 > 28 works well enough).
RustyBug wrote
Makten wrote
Soooo, how is the "typical" super high geometric distortion that has to be corrected with software?Edit: I think he's wrong, but we don't know yet.
I'm with ya on this one.
Looking at that honkin' huge rear element in the 35/4 ... and having shot my pancake 40 Summicron-C, one can hope that the reliance on computational distortion correction is minimal (prefer none), and that the 35/4 is a "recessed" lens with excellent distortion correction. That other conversation about 13% is ... well, my temperament for lens choices is typically under 2%, under 1% all the better. I noticed that when (say Nikon) mfr's started moving to the closer registration of mirrorless, their wider throats, included increased reliance on computational corrections in the wider lenses, as a byproduct of those decisions.
I realize that in the context of the Q's Summilux, the computational aspect of shooting a 26 > 28 is "standard think", my experience with it for architectural aspects, leaves more distortion in play than I often care for. Of late, I've found that shooting it in crop mode 35mm more satisfying, as it mitigates much of the computation distortion adjusted areas.
The computational distortion doesn't seem to be linear, but rather exponential. So, when I end up with rotations or other adjustments, it doesn't pan out quite as easily as it does for simple travel scenes or snaps, etc. (where the 26 > 28 works well enough).
Mar 23, 2025 at 10:48 AM
p.3 #10Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:14 AM
|
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #11Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:25 AM
p.3 #12Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Makten wrote:
If moving a lens back and forth to focus "sucks dust, then how does the supposedly sealed lens move back and forth without also moving air to account for the changing internal volume of the lens?Of course it must move air, but if there is a seal in front of the lens, air will move from one side of the lens to the other without any opening to the surrounding environment.
I have no way of checking, but does the front element not move on this lens when focusing?
gdanmitchell wrote
serhan_ wrote
The problem is the lens will suck dust while focusing and hood might give some protection, but it will not be sealing the focus mechanism.I have no way of checking, but does the front element not move on this lens when focusing?
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:25 AM
p.3 #13Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
gdanmitchell wrote:
If moving a lens back and forth to focus "sucks dust, then how does the supposedly sealed lens move back and forth without also moving air to account for the changing internal volume of the lens?Of course it must move air, but if there is a seal in front of the lens, air will move from one side of the lens to the other without any opening to the surrounding environment.I have no way of checking, but does the front element not move on this lens when focusing?
Don't know, but I suppose so, and that is the whole reason for the protruding filter attachment ring-thing.
Makten wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
serhan_ wrote
The problem is the lens will suck dust while focusing and hood might give some protection, but it will not be sealing the focus mechanism.Don't know, but I suppose so, and that is the whole reason for the protruding filter attachment ring-thing.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:29 AM
p.3 #14Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RoamingScott wrote:
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.
Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q ... similar / better / no contest - way better?
Edited on Mar 23, 2025 at 11:32 AM · View previous versions
tsdevine wrote
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q ... similar / better / no contest - way better?
Edited on Mar 23, 2025 at 11:32 AM · View previous versions
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:30 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #15Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
Yes, the lens/front element moves while focusing, just like the X100 which has this exact same caveat with the filter adapter.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:31 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #16Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RustyBug wrote:
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2s35lx9m0uby2q5w60rf0/ALUqlr0Fn3ojFKQCEZp3U5g?rlkey=frst7h75gwhyc1ig5jgm1ovvp&e=1&st=9i6kpohz&dl=0
Let us know =)
RoamingScott wrote
tsdevine wrote
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2s35lx9m0uby2q5w60rf0/ALUqlr0Fn3ojFKQCEZp3U5g?rlkey=frst7h75gwhyc1ig5jgm1ovvp&e=1&st=9i6kpohz&dl=0
Let us know =)
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:31 AM
p.3 #17Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
tsdevine wrote:
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
I tried, but my version of C1 doesn't support the files. They don't even show in the C1 browser.
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.
I tried, but my version of C1 doesn't support the files. They don't even show in the C1 browser.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:33 AM
p.3 #18Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RoamingScott wrote:
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2s35lx9m0uby2q5w60rf0/ALUqlr0Fn3ojFKQCEZp3U5g?rlkey=frst7h75gwhyc1ig5jgm1ovvp&e=1&st=9i6kpohz&dl=0
Let us know =)
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. That, or maybe it's just "different".
Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting. Certainly, not a technical camera / lens ...but then again, it's not a technical camera / lens.
Edited on Mar 23, 2025 at 11:45 AM · View previous versions
RustyBug wrote
RoamingScott wrote
tsdevine wrote
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?
Let us know =)
Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. That, or maybe it's just "different".
Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting. Certainly, not a technical camera / lens ...but then again, it's not a technical camera / lens.
Edited on Mar 23, 2025 at 11:45 AM · View previous versions
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:41 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #19Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RustyBug wrote:
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2s35lx9m0uby2q5w60rf0/ALUqlr0Fn3ojFKQCEZp3U5g?rlkey=frst7h75gwhyc1ig5jgm1ovvp&e=1&st=9i6kpohz&dl=0
Let us know =)Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better"...Show more →
The profile for the RF is already in LR, just load em up and play.
RoamingScott wrote
RustyBug wrote
RoamingScott wrote
tsdevine wrote
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?
Let us know =)
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better"...Show more →
The profile for the RF is already in LR, just load em up and play.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:42 AM
p.3 #20Fujfilm GFX100RF officially announced!
RoamingScott wrote:
The uncorrected images are unusable IMO due to the distortion outside of center.Easy correction in PP ... or PITA correction
How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2s35lx9m0uby2q5w60rf0/ALUqlr0Fn3ojFKQCEZp3U5g?rlkey=frst7h75gwhyc1ig5jgm1ovvp&e=1&st=9i6kpohz&dl=0
Let us know =)Well ... that's more of a bummer than lack of IBIS or f/4.
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting.The profile for the RF is already in LR, just load em up and play.
I might play with 'em tonight ... heading out in a few ... thanks.
RustyBug wrote
RoamingScott wrote
RustyBug wrote
RoamingScott wrote
tsdevine wrote
Just download some of the RAWs on DPReview, if using Lightroom, you can turn off distortion correction. The difference between uncorrected and corrected is not insignificant. The corrected shots look pretty solid though, although I too prefer distortion correction in lens.How much "crop" factor, to get inside the distortion?
And, compared to the Summilux on the Q?
Let us know =)
Computation correction, hmmm ... wonder how it'll handle the concrete in the stairs image. The horizon shot is probably pretty simple for it to handle. The sailboat masts and the steeple seem to have a "bent angle" in play.
Of course, sometimes that is the shooter (i.e. not square / level / plumb) inducing (or exaggerating) things.
Would want to see more samples (and corrections) before I toss the baby out with the bath water. Gut check says "better" than the Summilux, but not "no contest - way better" from these few images. Head to head raw vs. head to head computational correction would be interesting.
I might play with 'em tonight ... heading out in a few ... thanks.
Mar 23, 2025 at 11:45 AM