I’ve been shooting Leica for about twenty years now… film and digital… but for a good decade, I had a side love affair with the Hasselblad X-Pan. About a year ago, paranoia got the best of me - values were spiking, repairs were getting dicey… so I sold the kit. I’ve regretted it ever since. There’s just something about that 65:24 aspect ratio that gets under your skin.
Now, I’m looking to bring that experience back, only digital this time. The Fuji GFX 50R seems like the closest thing out there, especially with its built-in 65:24 mode.
I’ve started poking around and throwing out some offers around the $2K mark for the body, but so far the responses range from blank stares to “are you out of your mind?”
So, tell me… am I crazy? Have these eight-year-old cameras actually shot up in value, or is $2K still a fair shake for a clean body?
ryan1938 wrote:
Now, I’m looking to bring that experience back, only digital this time. The Fuji GFX 50R seems like the closest thing out there, especially with its built-in 65:24 mode.
FYI, all full frame Panasonic Lumix cameras (including the much-hated S9) have the 65:24 X-Pan crop mode. No need to spend extra on the Fuji medium format system if shooting the 65:24 ratio is your main objective.
I chose the 50S over the 50R as my first Gfx. The 50S has a nice grip and feel in hand (basically same as 100S) and weighs very little more (50g) than the 50R. The VF is a little better on the 50S as well. Otherwise, performance is essentially the same.
I upgraded from a 50R to 100S. Somewhat regret it. I miss the 50R look and control layout. Really do not care for the 100S controls at all.
IBIS and the allure of 100mp drove the decision but the reality is that the 50R was way more fun to shoot and I end up using the 100S on a tripod anyway.
If your intention is to shoot Gfx on a tripod and don't need stabilization, then the case for the 50mp cameras in stronger. The 100S also has a little better AF but assuming shooting from a tripod is for stationary things, its less of an issue. But within the 50mp models, I think even on a tripod, the 50S is a better choice. The top screen and D-pad are super useful when on a tripod, both are on the 50S and not the R. The battery for the 50S & R, is not as good as the newer one on 50SII, 100S, and most Fuji's.
ryan1938 wrote:
Aware… but I thought this was also a nice opportunity to explore Fuji colors.
Do you use Lightroom? or JPG only.
If Lightroom, Adobe utilizes their own .dcp files that are completely unrelated to the manufacturer. In Lightroom, the GFX50Sii/50R and especially the 100S all have different color.
I reccomend the 50SII over the 50R. Trying to focus with the jello-y 50 series sensor is one job, mix in no IBIS and it becomes worse. The 50SII also has a better viewfinder, I've used both and unless you are trying to look cute, the 50SII is a vastly better option.
lifef8 wrote:
Do you use Lightroom? or JPG only.
If Lightroom, Adobe utilizes their own .dcp files that are completely unrelated to the manufacturer.
I use x-trans APS-C bodies but I think saving that the Adobe versions of the sims are “completely unrelated” is a significant exaggeration. They seem pretty darned similar to me. And, of course, you can use them with raw files.
ryan1938 wrote:
Aware… but I thought this was also a nice opportunity to explore Fuji colors.
One of the beauties of the Fuji system is the ability to explore colours in the field if you like that sort of thing. I often find when the light is interesting or changing you can experiment with different film sim recipes to make something more interesting than what might be achieved sitting on a computer doing post processing.
In theory post processing could achieve the same result but if you draw inspiration in the field and like thinking about what the end result might look like, the film sims/recipes are a useful aid. And if you want to minimise your post processing, you can often produce JPEGs that are good to go. I found this less the case with other systems.
Reiterating that I have nothing against JPG!
Only saying what I said as there is a ton of misinformation about "Fuji colors" when using Adobe software,
The Adobe raw versions of Fuji's Classic Chrome are somewhat similar approximation, but not a 1:1 to the JPG's SOOC/official xtrans software.
Found a good 50R at a decent price, so I’m in the game. I don’t have any lenses yet, but will start with a 35mm summilux in m-mount. I know the image circle won’t cover, but I’m hoping it’s usable in 65:24 aspect ratio until I can figure out what I want natively.
Are those 50MP MF cameras worth it compared to an used A7RIV or A7RV? Sony is smaller, lighter, sensor has same DR, bit higher resolution, huge lens selection, different league AF capabilities. I just can't see any reason to buy an 50MP GFX over Sony, maybe 4:3 format if 3:2 is deal breaker for some reason. Of course the latest 100MP 44x33mm sensor is different story, it has technical advantage over 60MP FF.
As I see the X-PAN aspect ratio is the main reason in this case where I'd definitely choose A7RIV over 50MP GFX. 60MP FF has 9500 pixel horizontal resolution, 50MP MF has 8250 with same dynamic range. You just crop out more surface from a 4:3 sensor than from 3:2 at X-Pan.
Lukacs wrote:
Are those 50MP MF cameras worth it compared to an used A7RIV or A7RV? Sony is smaller, lighter, sensor has same DR, bit higher resolution, huge lens selection, different league AF capabilities. I just can't see any reason to buy an 50MP GFX over Sony, maybe 4:3 format if 3:2 is deal breaker for some reason. Of course the latest 100MP 44x33mm sensor is different story, it has technical advantage over 60MP FF.
As I see the X-PAN aspect ratio is the main reason in this case where I'd definitely choose A7RIV over 50MP GFX. 60MP FF has 9500 pixel horizontal resolution, 50MP MF has 8250 with same dynamic range. You just crop out more surface from a 4:3 sensor than from 3:2 at X-Pan....Show more →
I have the Fuji GF 50S and the Sony A7r V and the Sony does not have higher DR and especially so if your prefer to use a 4 X 3 aspect ratio as I do and you therefore need to crop the Sony camera which lowers DR just a bit. Here is the graph from photons to photos comparing the cameras:
There isn't really much difference in DR, but what little difference there is the Fuji 50MP sensor has the advantage. I don't think the difference is much of reason to pick the medium format camera, however. There are usability reasons I prefer the Fuji, which includes the wonderful tilting EVF on the 50S, the dials and the top LCD which I find really useful. It is of course a slow focussing camera and the overall speed of the Fuji isn't great, but for landscapes, and still life, and close ups it is wonderful.
Another reason for choosing the Fuji is just what the adapting lenses to the GFX cameras thread that I started is all about, the lenses you can use on it and how they look different on the medium format camera. The 9500 vs. 8250 pixels is a pretty small difference, whereas I find the difference of the look of a lens like the Contax 645 120 f/4 Macro or the Leica R 80 f/1.4 to be very different on the two cameras.
If you want a platform that has the most resolution and great AF, then yes the Sony beats the 50MP cameras in both those categories and the AF by a mile, but if you want a platform for using medium format lenses and if you are shooting still or slow moving targets, the Fuji GF cameras can be a very compelling option.
And although the Fuji GF system may not have a lot of lenses, the ones they make are very compelling. I don't have many of them, but I do have the 23 f/4 and I don't find any lens for Sony that performs quite as well. I also have the lowly 45 f/2.8 and it too beats the 35 f/2 options for Sony to my eyes. Similar things could be said I believe about the 110 f/2. And the 55 f/1.7 has no parallel on Sony. I haven't used it but I think the Fuji GF 20-35 f/4 is generally a stronger lens than the options available for Sony as well. So yes, there are many many lenses that are available on Sony but not available for the Fuji GF system, but there are some really nice lenses for the GF system and even a few for which Sony doesn't have a good match so lenses can be a reason to pick the Fuji system depending on your needs and what you shoot.
It is no secret that the 50 MP Fuji GF cameras are not action oriented cameras, but for some types of shooting they are excellent and if that is what you are doing then they can be a compelling option.
MF advantage over FF are DR and resolution. The 50MP old MF sensor has none of them compared to 60MP FF.
Aspect ratio is personal preference as camera body is, but strictly in technical aspect there is no advantage (A7RV has also magnificent EVF). In same time I can agree on if you have a specific lens preference, in case an adapted lens with the FOV on 44x33mm sensor, and you don't need good AF-C with other lenses, then the choice is obvious.
Oct 14, 2025 at 07:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lukacs wrote:
MF advantage over FF are DR and resolution. The 50MP old MF sensor has none of them compared to 60MP FF.
Aspect ratio is personal preference as camera body is, but strictly in technical aspect there is no advantage (A7RV has also magnificent EVF). In same time I can agree on if you have a specific lens preference, in case an adapted lens with the FOV on 44x33mm sensor, and you don't need good AF-C with other lenses, then the choice is obvious.
DR and resolution are two potential advantage for medium format, but they are not the only advantages. One major advantage you are not considering is you can design lenses with a larger F number but still get shallow depth of field. You do need a bigger image circle, but that larger F number often eases the design and allows the development of interesting lenses. For example, the 110 f/2 is quite sharp but has no Asph elements. It is a quite different design from almost all modern 85 f/1.4 FF lenses. It is the larger sensor size that allows this design. At an f/2 max aperture it is easier to design a lens that is sharp without using Asph elements. At f/1.4, where the spherical aberrations greatly increase, you really need an Asph element or two to get good sharpness. Not so with the medium format lens.
