ruthenium wrote:
If they release a GFX180, I suggest Fujifilm should also develop a relatively lightweight GF250mm lens with a digital 3x zoom ring on the lens.
At the long end (equivalent to full-frame 600mm) this hypothetical camera system would record a 20MP image - sufficient for many purposes.
Thus, this lens would be a digital zoom acting like a full-frame 200-600 mm lens, with the advantage of offering the superb optical quality of a prime medium-format lens.
It would make sense for this prime - digital zoom - lens to be as fast as a relatively lightweight 250mm lens can possibly be, e.g. F2.8.
Naturally, the AF should be useable for the typical cases like birds or animals. This can be a challenge, but not an impossible task. ...Show more →
I can see your argument for this, and at some point that option becomes more and more viable. But I have a hunch that not everyone wants to pay the costs of an extra large and heavy camera so that reduces the output to that of a smaller and less expensive camera.
What I'd REALLY like to see from Fujifilm — more than a 180MP sensor — is a 200-400 or 200-500 lens for the GFX series. (That would not keep them from offering digital zoom in the camera.)
ruthenium wrote:
If they release a GFX180, I suggest Fujifilm should also develop a relatively lightweight GF250mm lens with a digital 3x zoom ring on the lens.
At the long end (equivalent to full-frame 600mm) this hypothetical camera system would record a 20MP image - sufficient for many purposes.
Thus, this lens would be a digital zoom acting like a full-frame 200-600 mm lens, with the advantage of offering the superb optical quality of a prime medium-format lens.
It would make sense for this prime - digital zoom - lens to be as fast as a relatively lightweight 250mm lens can possibly be, e.g. F2.8.
Naturally, the AF should be useable for the typical cases like birds or animals. This can be a challenge, but not an impossible task. ...Show more →
Beyond about 1.25x digital zoom (achieving 250mm FF equivalent FOV) it doesn’t behave like a „full frame“ lens anymore but like a lens on a smaller sensor with some full frame equivalent field of view. After all it’s still a 250mm lens, so to achieve 600mm FF equivalent, it behaves like something between a MFT and 1“ sensor (2.4x crop vs FF).
fjablo wrote:
Beyond about 1.25x digital zoom (achieving 250mm FF equivalent FOV) it doesn’t behave like a „full frame“ lens anymore but like a lens on a smaller sensor with some full frame equivalent field of view. After all it’s still a 250mm lens, so to achieve 600mm FF equivalent, it behaves like something between a MFT and 1“ sensor (2.4x crop vs FF).
Cropping a 180MP GFX sensor by a factor of 3 gives a 20MP 14.6 x 11mm crop, slightly smaller than micro-four-thirds sensors (17.4x13mm).
Regarding " it doesn’t behave like a „full frame“ lens anymore" when cropped - this depends on what you compare to exactly.
For example, let's consider the Sony FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G lens.
600mm F6.3 is equivalent to 760mm F8 on a GFX that can be achieved by cropping a 253mm F2.7 image by a factor of 3.
Thus, a theoretical GFX180 with a 250mm F2.8 lens that has a digital zoom ring should produce 20MP images practically equivalent to those one can obtain with a full-frame 600mm F6.3 lens. The number of pixels can be different on a full-frame camera, but 20MP should be sufficient in many cases.
Note that the Sony 200-600mm zoom weights 2,115 g (74.7 oz); it is also a rather long lens, especially with the hood attached.
Considering that the Sony 300 F2.8 GM lens weights 1470 g (51.9 oz), it might be feasible to make a 250mm F2.8 lens with a weight near 1300 g.
In practical terms, it is a fair question, whether the suggested digital zoom would make sense. There are alternatives, for sure.
This is the micro-four-thirds OM-1 II with either Olympus 150-400mm F4.5 (equivalent FF 300-800 F9) or Olympus 300mm F4 (equivalent 600mm F8) lenses.
The deciding factors are two-fold. The first is obviously about the costs (should not cost more than Sony A1 + 200-600mm)). The second is about general useability: whereas a micro-four-thirds system cannot be converted into a medium-format system, a GFX180 is and can be used like any other medium format system. Thus, someone who would buy the hypothetical 250mm F2.8 "digital zoom" would simply gain an option to shoot at FF equivalent 600mm with a relatively lightweight lens.
The final thought is that a GFX180 should allow pixel-binning and recording 50 to 100 MP raw files. We don't need 180 MP for most uses.
For those who find MFT resolution sufficient, it probably makes more sense to just get a MFT camera with some of the excellent — and small — Olympus lenses.
msadat wrote:
you can load up 300-500 gfx 100 files on the air and edit, develop? how long does it take to do a one of these ai edits? also to process and create jpgs? i am looking to switch my win laptop. thx
My primary with the 100S was an M1 MacBook Air with 16GB RAM. No problems whatsoever with RAW files.
Anything you get today will easily be able to handle 100mpix RAW files. They’re all quite a bit faster than an M1.
EB-1 wrote:
180MP with that little 33x44mm sensor would mean around 2.8µm pixel pitch. It would have made more sense on a larger sensor like P1 used to do.
There are three practical benefits:
-with sharp lens at f2.8-f4 x-pan format gives high resolution panorama
-cropping ability from center of the image below f4, aka digital zoom
-significant less aliasing than on 100MP sensor
fjablo wrote:
Every time a camera with significantly higher resolution is announced people complain they don’t need it, that it will require more computing power, will waste disk space. Just waiting for the guy claiming lenses won’t be up to the task..
And then the product gets released and people buy it because it’s the highest resolution camera available.
Funny how that works..
I personally do not need 180mp, but I also don’t need 100mp and I think the GFX system is hardly worth the extra weight and bulk over full frame anyway. But that’s just me and I’m clearly not the target audience 😅...Show more →
I don't know if it's the same people, though.
Some people are always going to buy the highest resolution camera -- but if you don't want it, you probably won't buy it.
I also wanna note that Sony's A7 R series is not as popular as just its normal A7 series. Not everyone is running out to buy the highest resolution camera. Most people are hugely influenced by price and/or the sweet spot between features and price.
mdude85 wrote:
I don't know if it's the same people, though.
Some people are always going to buy the highest resolution camera -- but if you don't want it, you probably won't buy it.
I also wanna note that Sony's A7 R series is not as popular as just its normal A7 series. Not everyone is running out to buy the highest resolution camera. Most people are hugely influenced by price and/or the sweet spot between features and price.
There’s a sane middle ground between the “I won’ buy any camera with more MP!” people and the “if it has more MP I’m buying it!” people.
This is the larger group who, when it is otherwise time to replace/upgrade an older camera, may well see that the industry has moved to higher MP systems with good performance and who will buy one of them. They are neither Luddites or Techies — just photographers. :-)
Jan 22, 2026 at 01:02 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mdude85 wrote:
Most people are hugely influenced by price and/or the sweet spot between features and price.
I think you are right, but I also think that if you are in the market for a new GFX body you aren't hugely influenced by price or the sweet spot between features and price. This observation is another way of saying that the market for a GFX camera is not most people, but a fairly small subset of photographers.
Hmmmm... Yes it's a logical next step, especially given that the sensor is a reality and not vaporware.
My computer is more than capable to manage and process them, I have plenty of free disc storage space to store them on and I even already own ample CFx/SD cards to use in such a camera, so these are non-issues for me. Cost of the camera might be an issue, but for now that's irrelevant.
My question is about lens ability to utilize that level of resolution -- I don't think we're there --anywhere near there-- yet with any available MF lenses, and I don't see us being there anytime soon. But then extra pixels aren't always about resolution, often they add to tonal smoothness, so there is that. The other thing there could be is pixel binning for added speed and superior high ISO noise, which in turn would give the camera broader utility maybe
Will I buy one? Not likely. Will it sell well? Very likely...
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think you are right, but I also think that if you are in the market for a new GFX body you aren't hugely influenced by price or the sweet spot between features and price. This observation is another way of saying that the market for a GFX camera is not most people, but a fairly small subset of photographers.
I think a lot of people are in the market for a new GFX body because they are influenced by price. The price is high in absolute terms, but quite affordable in relation to pretty much any other medium format setup. The series is aimed at professional photographers, who are almost always price conscious.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think you are right, but I also think that if you are in the market for a new GFX body you aren't hugely influenced by price or the sweet spot between features and price. This observation is another way of saying that the market for a GFX camera is not most people, but a fairly small subset of photographers.
I rarely disagree with you, Steve, but I'm gonna disagree on this one.
Given the incredible price and size, with the built-in grip, of the original 100, plus the meaningful gap in time before the 100s came out at [literally the price of a whole Z8] cheaper, I think it's very reasonable to think that those two cameras occupied separate niches and could coexist, sort of like a Nikon D700 that was a grip-less D3.
But then the 100 II came in quite a bit smaller and less expensive, yet they still made a 100s II, *and* it came out only like six minutes after the 100 II...feels like an admission that the 100s II price point was the sweet spot and the 100 II only existed for a handful of people who *really* needed a certain couple of *very* specific features.
I literally bought the 100 II and not the 100S II because I could put a vertical grip on the 100 II. I do not like shooting the 100S vertically with the 250F4 and the 110F2. Lee Saxon wrote:
I rarely disagree with you, Steve, but I'm gonna disagree on this one.
Given the incredible price and size, with the built-in grip, of the original 100, plus the meaningful gap in time before the 100s came out at [literally the price of a whole Z8] cheaper, I think it's very reasonable to think that those two cameras occupied separate niches and could coexist, sort of like a Nikon D700 that was a grip-less D3.
But then the 100 II came in quite a bit smaller and less expensive, yet they still made a 100s II, *and* it came out only like six minutes after the 100 II...feels like an admission that the 100s II price point was the sweet spot and the 100 II only existed for a handful of people who *really* needed a certain couple of *very* specific features....Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
I literally bought the 100 II and not the 100S II because I could put a vertical grip on the 100 II. I do not like shooting the 100S vertically with the 250F4 and the 110F2.
For me the 110/2 was fine when I tried a 100s. But if I owned a 250 (or 500, or probably either of the Tilt/Shift), I'd probably make the same decision (well, or just keep my 100, which is what I did anyway). But my guess would be that those are probably the four most niche GF lenses so I'd say that probably still fits within "unless you need a couple of very specific features".
I think the 110 is a matter of duration. Walking the street casually? Fine. Hours long studio session? No. The 250F4 vertically just felt unbalanced to me. I ape hang the camera so it can just get uncomfortable dealing with command dials. Lee Saxon wrote:
For me the 110/2 was fine when I tried a 100s. But if I owned a 250 (or 500, or probably either of the Tilt/Shift), I'd probably make the same decision (well, or just keep my 100, which is what I did anyway). But my guess would be that those are probably the four most niche GF lenses so I'd say that probably still fits within "unless you need a couple of very specific features".
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think you are right, but I also think that if you are in the market for a new GFX body you aren't hugely influenced by price or the sweet spot between features and price. This observation is another way of saying that the market for a GFX camera is not most people, but a fairly small subset of photographers.
I would agree that it is a small subset of photographers, but I like to think that the subset is defined by need for particular features and capabilities related to their particular photography… and not just how wealthy they are.
