I've used the GFX100RF on a couple trips now and found it to be a capable travel camera. You can crop for days, it's fairly small and unobtrusive, people aren't afraid of it, etc. Yes, it does entail some compromises — as does pretty much any travel kit since the game is generally to minimize the amount and size of gear you're carrying. It's all a matter of choosing which compromises are the ones you can work with.
chez wrote:
Yes, you can take a photo like that…but what is the photo trying to tell the viewer? Isn’t this just a form of shoot & pray?
I'm not that deep to sculpt narratives out of most stills, I'd just shoot if I saw something interesting to me. Most of the time I shoot for just myself then I analyze what I liked about that scene or moment afterwards and distill it into more focused fiction to share with others if it motivates me enough. Oh, but you're right in that it doesn't give you much reaction time cause stuff happens so fast. I guess it could be a type of training to not think so much.
mark1958 wrote:
Years ago I tried taking my Hasselblad MF in air travel trips. More recently tried doing the same with GFX100 but gave it up for most trips. The weight and limitations for anything other than landscapes for me are the biggest issues and discussed by others. If I am on a road trip without restrictions (e.g. carryon), I might bring the MF (if majority expected to be landscapes) but will always include some type of 35mm system.
My default travel system used to be the GFX + GF35-70. But on the last few trips, it's been overtaken by the Z8 + Z24-120 and a small prime. The 24-120 just offers so many more options - it's hard to beat. On my last trip, I took only the Q3 and did just fine, making very different images than what I would have made with other systems. Next time I might end up with GFX+GF50 and Q3. Seems like it will cover most of my use cases.
I’m still in search for the lightest carry while providing maximum resolution to support cropping. The GFX100RF to cover wide and Q3 43 crop to cover up to 75 or so as the latter, despite having 60mp, still results in higher mp files compared to cropping the RF to 75. Since picking up a MEV1, also enjoying a small kit using 21/35/50 primes.
It’s personal preference as many will say perspectives will have changed when cropping.
Like others above - have two travel kits: the simplest is M10 with 35mm, sometimes bumped up to carrying a 50mm and 21SEM too.
Other version is to take X2D with (say) 45 or 55, and the 28 just in case. Rarely take both. The difference is in size and weight (M10 easier to walk w around all day) but either kit will fit in carryon backpack . Ideally would like a longer lens w the X2D (90 or 135), but then things start to get heavier and not for travel.
With the M10, limits are well known and it's quite comfortable to work with. With the X2D, its capabilities are so expanded that it's not the same comfort level. Sounds weird, but it makes almost anything look good.
olegkin wrote:
But on the last few trips, it's been overtaken by the Z8 + Z24-120 and a small prime. The 24-120 just offers so many more options - it's hard to beat.
Most people will do anything but use the logical swiss army knife
chez wrote:
Yep, wouldn’t call any lens attached to the Z8 a Swiss army solution for travel. Just a pig of a camera to haul around.
I agree and I wish Nikon fixed the size issue before I switch to a different brand. But z8+z24-120 fits into the same small bag (barely) as q3 + godox it32 (comfortably), so it is annoying but not critical issue for me.
You definitely don't need a Z8 for a "travel" camera, that's simply a preference. Z5 II, Z6 III, Z7 II, and Zf are all way smaller options. Either way, the 24-120 is a nothing lens to carry on any of them.
Depends on the trip — I did a national park-oriented trip with my family and brought the Z8 and 24-120 and it was perfectly suited to it. A small Z camera with the 24-120 is a decent travel option, though for more urban stuff I'd prefer a smaller body and lens combo.
The 24-120 is brilliant, I have not been great at utilizing it enough for travel tbh.
tzhang4284 wrote:
If you like 55mm in MF, I think the Q3 43mm APO is a superior solution to the GFX100RF. Much better overall rendering in my opinion + it has OIS, which is good enough for photos although the video quality was shaky. I miss that camera and I've been tempted to buy that back but trying to stick to M11 for light weight and SL3-S for when I need something heavier duty.
I've been tempted to replace my Leica SL3-S for the X2DII but I like having the video capabilities for times I shoot video in the SL3-S, which is nonexistent on the Hasselblad. Not sure the GFX100RF made me want to move into Fuji GFX at all - my experience with Fuji XF + the GFX is that it's very fiddly and a bit behind the other manufactuers although they have great hardware design.
I will probably replace the SL3-S with something with more megapixels at some point once they can deliver a 40 to 50mp body with competent video but it delivers some of the best looking 24mp images I've seen with the SL APOs....Show more →
Agreed. I do have the Q3-43 and it’s definitely my preferred Q camera. My compact X2D carry is a 28P, 55V and 90V and I’d love the same in Q’s. If it’s just one lens the it’s either a Q3-43 or the X2D2 with the 55V.
I’m not particularly interested in video except for some casual visual memories so that does inform my camera choices. I have the high res SL3 rather than a part centric SL3-S. I do shoot a bit but mostly with a pocket 3 or my phone. I can see how those with an interest or need for video will make different choices.
I have a reasonably competent GFX kit, which I got to fill the holes left by my Hasselblads. As HB fills gaps in their system (like the 35-100) I have less need for the GFX cameras. To me the relationship between GFX and Hasselblad is similar to Canikony vs Leica. The former is generally more capable but the latter is more enjoyable. I don’t hate the GFX cameras and I understand them. But Fuji menus are horrific and I don’t love the handling. But for some a GFX100Sii and the 35-75 is a compelling and smaller than 135 format, travel kit. I’ll likely still have a GFX camera or two around just for the 100-200, until Hasselblad release something similar. I’m the plus side the GFX100ii has the best EVF on the market right now as well as the best rear screen articulation. Also they have a great lens selection from tiny pancakes to monster fast primes and teles. Plus, apart from colour I defy anyone to be able to pick an IQ difference to HB. At the same time if the lenses are available I always choose the X2D over a GFX.
As long as I have 60MP generally, IQ differences are moot. It’s down to handling and enjoyment after that. I print enough that I can see the differences at A0 for camera less than 60MP. And generally I don’t crop a lot in post. I’m not one to see a high resolution cameras as a way to have more than one focal length. If I want that I’ll carry a zoom. I do use the crop function in my X2D’s as I still get a 50-80MP file. But I’ll do that in camera. I also don’t do a lot of posting to social media. My end goal is a print. My workflow and camera choices are all with that in mind. So cropping a Q3 file is almost never going to happen.
In over 60 years of travelling/photographing I've used almost everthing, from iPhone to 4x5 field camera and 28/220 Roundshot. All work; all produce results just different results. Take your pick.
In the last decade I've often taken OM System cameras with the 12-100 zoom and a Laowa 7.5mm lens. The OM with 12-100 has stabilization to compete with anyone as well as outstanding optical quality, and it is weather sealed to a degree that has allowed me to go into the shower with the camera to rinse it off after I got a lot of salt water on it on a number of occasions. On a trip in 2025 I took an M10M with 35 Apo and an iPhone. Also completely satisfactory for the types of trips I took. Of course, when we went to Kenya or Antarctica I took long lenses and when we went to architecturally interesting cities I took more wideangles, but at my age I'm not taking what I took on a long family trip to Europe: 2 Nikons (F4 & F90), 6 lenses from 15 to 400 and two Leicas with 4 lenses. Plus 250 rolls of film. Plus tripod. I didn't regret it, but I shudder when I think of trying that now.
There are a couple of trips I'm going on in the next 2 months. One, which includes the LSI meeting in London, will be 2 Leicas and 4 lenses and the other which is a road trip through the (Canadian) Rockies will include Leicas and OM with some long lenses. As usual, the Sony A series will stay behind as I don't find them as travel friendly.
I've tried it a bit and the HB intrigues me, but having shot a lot of film MF and LF including 8x10, I know that the extra quality is at present overkill for me and I would rather throw money in the Wetzlar direction at present.
flash wrote:
My compact X2D carry is a 28P, 55V and 90V
SlowDriver wrote:
Very similar. Mine is 28P, 38V and 75P (a total of 1.833kg).
Interesting. Having prevaricated for several years, for several reasons I am now seriously considering the X2D II, for a combination of travel, architecture and landscape. (Just need to decide what to offload first .... ) As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm not overly concerned about weight, but I do somewhat care about size. Although everyone's circumstances and preferences are different (and I will make my own choice about what, if anything, to buy), I do find it useful to hear what works for people with good experience of using this sort of kit.
There's a slight quandary here. 38 to 90mm is quite a big gap but, for me, 75mm (on 44x33) probably isn't long enough and 55mm isn't wide enough. So my inclination is to go with the 38V alone, at least for a time, and then decide between the 75P and 90V. Given that some of my time is spent in the mountains, I suspect I'll eventually plump for the 90V. And that may, for me, be sufficient. Finally, after far too many failed attempts, I may succeed in limiting myself to two lenses ....
Andrew CD wrote:
Interesting. Having prevaricated for several years, for several reasons I am now seriously considering the X2D II, for a combination of travel, architecture and landscape. (Just need to decide what to offload first .... ) As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm not overly concerned about weight, but I do somewhat care about size. Although everyone's circumstances and preferences are different (and I will make my own choice about what, if anything, to buy), I do find it useful to hear what works for people with good experience of using this sort of kit.
There's a slight quandary here. 38 to 90mm is quite a big gap but, for me, 75mm (on 44x33) probably isn't long enough and 55mm isn't wide enough. So my inclination is to go with the 38V alone, at least for a time, and then decide between the 75P and 90V. Given that some of my time is spent in the mountains, I suspect I'll eventually plump for the 90V. And that may, for me, be sufficient. Finally, after far too many failed attempts, I may succeed in limiting myself to two lenses .... ...Show more →
They're all weird focal lengths if you're coming from strictly 135 or smaller. The change in aspect ratio only gives you rough estimates. You really need to use them like you plan to use them if you want to best know what fits.
freaklikeme wrote:
They're all weird focal lengths if you're coming from strictly 135 or smaller. The change in aspect ratio only gives you rough estimates. You really need to use them like you plan to use them if you want to best know what fits.
True enough. 30mm, for instance, does seem odd, from a 135 perspective. Having said that, there's arguably nothing inherently special about 35mm or 50mm, as opposed to, say, 40mm or 55mm.
I'm trying to resist the temptation to buy anything new at the moment, but I have also been thinking quite carefully about what focal lengths are most useful for me. More specifically, I have had a thorough look through my photo library. Two or three focal length ranges stand out: 28-35mm and around 75mm (often cropped slightly) in particular. I also rather like 21mm. There is lots of 50mm too, of course, as well as telephoto stuff, but, for travel and mountains, 28-35 and 75+ predominate.
So, in Hasselblad terms, the 38V and, secondarily, the 90V are obvious choices, with the 75P and 28P or 25V as further options. I realise that the 55V is a strong contender too, and @flash has spoken very favourably about it, but I'm pretty sure that the 38V would suit me better. And, if I do pull the trigger, I am determined to limit myself to no more than two lenses for the foreseeable future. Sound reasonable?
You’re also looking at a different aspect ratio. The 38mm is about a 30mm in diagonal but a 28mm (rough guess) horizontally and a 33mm (another rough guess) vertically if 135 is your reference.
flash wrote:
You’re also looking at a different aspect ratio. The 38mm is about a 30mm in diagonal but a 28mm (rough guess) horizontally and a 33mm (another rough guess) vertically if 135 is your reference.
Additionally it remains a 38mm from a distortion perspective. A MF 35mm with a FF eq. field of view of 28mm will distort less than a FF 28mm.
Andrew CD wrote:
True enough. 30mm, for instance, does seem odd, from a 135 perspective. Having said that, there's arguably nothing inherently special about 35mm or 50mm, as opposed to, say, 40mm or 55mm.
I'm trying to resist the temptation to buy anything new at the moment, but I have also been thinking quite carefully about what focal lengths are most useful for me. More specifically, I have had a thorough look through my photo library. Two or three focal length ranges stand out: 28-35mm and around 75mm (often cropped slightly) in particular. I also rather like 21mm. There is lots of 50mm too, of course, as well as telephoto stuff, but, for travel and mountains, 28-35 and 75+ predominate.
So, in Hasselblad terms, the 38V and, secondarily, the 90V are obvious choices, with the 75P and 28P or 25V as further options. I realise that the 55V is a strong contender too, and @flash@ has spoken very favourably about it, but I'm pretty sure that the 38V would suit me better. And, if I do pull the trigger, I am determined to limit myself to no more than two lenses for the foreseeable future. Sound reasonable?...Show more →
38V was my one lens travel kit in 2024 and 25. It was my first purchase with 25V and 90V a bit later. On full frame I’m 21mm, 28mm and 35mm, so the 38V was an obvious first lens.
) As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I'm not overly concerned about weight, but I do somewhat care about size. Although everyone's circumstances and preferences are different (and I will make my own choice about what, if anything, to buy), I do find it useful to hear what works for people with good experience of using this sort of kit.