GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Danpbphoto
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

tsdevine wrote:
Thanks Dan, I had cameras that supported pixel shift for quite a long time, I think back to my a7R III. I only really started playing around with it when I got the a7R V. Given how Fuji pretty much mimics Sony (or vice versa), it wasn't hard. (Frankly it's not hard period). You just need the camera to be still, and ideally everything you're shooting (albeit Sony is a little more forgiving). You do have to sharpen them quite a bit, but they take sharpening extremely well. And given that it is getting real color samples at each pixel,...Show more →
Thanks Tim...Winter will be here before we realize it so I will take the time to learn something new.
Again THANKS!
Dan

Aug 28, 2025 at 10:39 AM

Knut.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Sep 10, 2025 at 03:48 PM

Knut.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

tsdevine wrote:
�. .

Hi Tim, I really enjoy your posts!

What made you go for a Fuji GFX 100s II after already having a Sony A7RV?
What are the main differences you observe using both cameras hands on?

Sep 10, 2025 at 03:51 PM

tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Well, when the GFX100RF was announced, it piqued my interest. I love the 28mm field of view and I had always wanted to try a larger than full frame camera (not going to get into the MF vs mimMF discussion). Not that I'm unhappy with my Sony equipment, but more about something that I had wanted to try. As I thought about it more though, I realized that if I liked it.....where do I go from there. Spending near 5 grand on a fixed lens camera. I didn't absolutely need that form factor, so I started to think about the GFX100S II instead.

It was a bit more at the time, and then of course I'd need to buy a lens as well. I was pretty impressed with what I saw and read about the 35-70, and for my type of shooting it seemed like a great option. So I bought it, shot it a bit, and enjoyed the 4:3rds aspect ratio and the images it produced. I shoot waterfalls, so I always look for high dynamic range sensors, check. I really liked the color of the shots, check. So this was right around the whole tariff fiasco started in the US. So I bought the 20-35 before the price zoomed up. Much of my landscape shooting is in the UWA to 50mm range. Between those two lenses, I had 16-55 covered. I also kind of liked having two bodies so I didn't have to switch lenses so much on the move.

So I don't have a smoking gun reason why, it was more just curiosity. In terms of differences, they have a lot of similarities actually. Both are slow readout sensor cameras. Some of the buttons are near the same spot and can be setup similarly. I like it has a setting to switch between EFCS and full mechanical based on shutter speed. So you don't have to worry about the issues you run into when shooting higher shutter speeds with EFCS. The pixel shift approach is vary similar. One thing I don't like is that when you change a setting on the fly...in a custom setting, you either have to choose to save the change automatically.....or not. If you don't, then the changed setting immediately reverts when turning the camera on and off. I like how Sony lets that change stick between power offs but resets when you change to another custom setting and back.

There is a really cool manual focus mode where you see the framed shot in part of the EVF and a small area to the right that shows at 100%. So if you're hand holding and focusing manually, you can see the framing and also focus at 100% at the same time. Hard to explain but I hope it makes sense.

It's funny though that some things are almost exactly the same...and some things are different. So it's taken me a bit of time to be able to use both cameras without thinking too much. I'm getting better at that, but it is something to consider when shooting two different systems.

I have a lot of big heavy lenses E mount lenses. So at the end of the day the weight didn't bother me. Camera is a bit big, but c'est la vie. Are the 20-35 and 35-70 as sharp as my best E mount lenses....maybe not. But the files are different enough that it's really hard to compare them objectively. Shooting landscapes with the Fuji yields beautiful results (not that my Sony results aren't really good too), so I don't agonize of pixel peeping trying to compare the two systems.

For my waterfall shooting, I like that the 20-35 takes screw in filters. My go to solution in E mount is the Sigma 14-24, which is a bit more cumbersome to use with filters.

On vacation I shot the Fuji 35-70 and Sony 50-150, which was somewhat complementary. I had to normal to short'ish telephoto with speed and 35-70 (28-55) which was a slower lens, but didn't really bother me for what I was doing. I swapped in the 20-35 if I needed wider, and I still had some of my other E mount lenses if I wanted something wider than 50m on E mount.

There are probably other differences, but it's hard to think of everything all at once. Also, one last thing, I predominantly do landscape shooting with maybe a bit of macro. I'll do some birding occasionally as well, but not too often.

Sep 11, 2025 at 06:42 PM

Knut.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

tsdevine wrote:
�

So I bought it, shot it a bit, and enjoyed the 4:3rds aspect ratio and the images it produced. I shoot waterfalls, so I always look for high dynamic range sensors, check. I really liked the color of the shots, check.

�

There is a really cool manual focus mode where you see the framed shot in part of the EVF and a small area to the right that shows at 100%. So if you're hand holding and focusing manually, you can see the framing and also focus at 100% at the same time. Hard to explain but I hope...Show more →

Dear Tim, thank you very much for your in depth account of your trip to the GFX. It piqued my curiosity if you moved to GFX completely, or if you added the camera to your existing photography cupboard 😉

(After Pentax) I moved to a quick readout Sony body (A1) since I did (and do) a lot of event photography at the school of my children. Suprisingly, coming from Pentax, I felt much more at home with manual focus lenses and settled on several of the Voigtl�nder Apo Lanthars since I was always annoyed by the green and purple highlights on brass instruments, unavoidable, if lenses are not perfectly corrected for LOCA. So in a way it is strange to have an A1 when most of the shooting is done in manual focus (but at the time ~4 years ago, it was the only camera with a 10mb viewfinder in addition to a fast readout speed, which helps with slower shutter speeds and LED lighting. Excellent video features for concerts also added to the attraction of the A1 - one body for everything).

Back to my curiosity concerning your move to GFX. From my Pentax time I still have an orphaned cupboard full of 645 lenses (35 to 400mm). I never sold them, since by now they are of very low worth on the market. But I love these lenses for their classic drawing style. Being made for a larger format, they do not have the limitations of some classic 35mm lenses, which at times do run into resolution problems when used wide open. Occasionally, I do find my Apo lanthars too harsh for certain landscape shots, especially in dreamy, backlit situations. In such situations I look back to the drawing style and colour of my Pentax lenses, which I have always liked.

Adding a GFX could be the solution for me! I�m still uncertain, if I should go for a 50mp or 100mp body. I am aware that 50mp might be more appropriate (and sufficient) for my existing 645 Pentax lenses, but I�m not completely sure about this. If 100mp is overkill (because the lenses are the limitation), I would be happy to save some money, but if 100mp does offer some advantages, even with my existing 645 Pentax lenses, I know that I would not be happy in the long run (and buying a 50mp GFX first, and upgrading to 100mp later would be the more expensive path). I usually use my bodies for a long time (~10 years) before switching / upgrading. It lets me get to know my cameras better.
What are your thoughts concerning 50 versus 100mp?
If 50mp is reasonable - which GFX body is presently most attractive?

PS:
I REALLY like the way manual focus appears to be implemented in the GFX. Thank you, for the effort of describing. I actually suggested some kind of implementation like this to Pentax over 10 years ago, when the 645z came out.
They acknowledged my suggestion, but alas eventually completely dropped the 645 line.
Do you know, if all GFX bodies have this feature, or only the 100s II?

PPS:
For landscape shots, that I actually hang on my wall, I actually prefer the 4:3 aspect of the GFX.
Another argument for a second body. 🙄 🤗

Sep 12, 2025 at 01:19 AM

tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Well, if you goal is for landscapes, then I say go big. If you are going to be shooting it for years, you don't know what lenses you might pick up down the road. I've only shot the Pentax 645 35mm f/3.5, no other Pentax 645 lenses. Stopped down it's sharp, still like my native GF lenses a bit better, but I haven't done extensive comparisons. Also, don't forget if you shoot your 645 lenses in 35mm crop mode, you are getting Sony a7R V resolution from the center of those medium format lenses. Might want to read the adapting to GFX thread, or post a new thread listing your 645 lenses to get people's opinion.

One of the things I didn't really think about when I bought the GFX100S II was that "crop" mode was basically like shooting my a7R V. That to me was pretty wild.

The counter argument, which you'll see in the "GFX seems to lack top-tier primes?" thread, is that 44x33 doesn't make enough difference from 35mm. While I have excellent E mount lenses, I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory. As with anything, there is diminishing returns at some point. But I enjoy my 4:3 GFX shots a lot. Not that it made me dislike my Sony or shots I get from it.

Sep 13, 2025 at 09:39 AM

Knut.
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Interesting thoughts to consider!

In addition, this is an important point: if you want a 4:3 print, you lose resolution if you crop your 35mm shot (A1 will be left with 45mp, A7RV with 55mp). This increases the difference to the 100mp of the GFX 100s II and in in addition to resolution (which might not come to fruition with all lenses), also tonality will improve. And this is irrespective of the resolution of the lens.

So there are more aspects to more pixels than linear resolution. Notwithstanding Fujifilms tradition of excellent color science, a leftover of their expertise from film days.

Sep 13, 2025 at 03:29 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · GFX100S II Pixel Shift

Knut. wrote:
Interesting thoughts to consider!

In addition, this is an important point: if you want a 4:3 print, you lose resolution if you crop your 35mm shot (A1 will be left with 45mp, A7RV with 55mp). This increases the difference to the 100mp of the GFX 100s II and in in addition to resolution (which might not come to fruition with all lenses), also tonality will improve. And this is irrespective of the resolution of the lens.

So there are more aspects to more pixels than linear resolution. Notwithstanding Fujifilms tradition of excellent color science, a leftover of their expertise from film...Show more →

Most of my landscapes are between 2:3 and 1:2 or even 1:3. Rarely do I ever crop from the short side. Most large printers can print long sheets if not from the roll.

Of course it is possible to pan and stitch static scenes with the larger sensors and that takes fewer frames than with smaller sensors.

EBH

Sep 13, 2025 at 05:25 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end