GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
p.2 #1GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I once made a 40” wide print of a XT5 shot using the 27mm f2.8 at f5.6 just to see how it would turn out… and it actually looked quite good.
- - -
Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.The biggest reason most people have for higher than 40MP is better cropping and less false colors/moire. The real question is how much do you actually use IBIS on a 28mm lens. It's more useful on telephotos but with with wider angles I essentially only use it for night time suburban landscapes. I don't really miss it on a camera like this since it could never replace an ILC and instead is meant for traveling/street/documentary work.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.I do half of my photography on Fujifilm x-trans, and I don’t see problems with “false colors/moire.”
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.x-trans still experiences false colors and moire it's just better at them at the cost of software not being optimized for and under some circumstances noise looking weird and worm like.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.These days IBIS barely adds any bulk or weight to cameras — the mechanism has become quite small. I have never heard of anyone having a real world problem with heart generated by I IS.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF,...Show more →
I currently own a GFX100rf after trying the Nikon Zf/z5ii and the x100vi when it first came out. The IBIS in the x100vi is indeed small but that is mostly due to smaller sensors requiring smaller movements to correct them. A larger IBIS unit for medium format takes quite a lot more space than a ASPC one and would add much more than a few millimeters larger body to support them and would generate a substantial amount of heat. I could see some OIS potentially being in any future GFX100rf releases but IBIS is mostly useful for telephoto focal lengths and reducing any sort of movement from the focal plane shutter. If Fujifilm could find a way to add stabilization to future GFX100rf's without adding bulk or heat to the camera that would be fantastic and I would be one of the sheep preordering. I just don't think that's realistic.
More power to anyone who wants to carry a trio of lenses around daily. I prefer to move through the world as weightless and unabated as possible. I have no problem losing resolution to cropping when it's a 100mp but I don't want to be slowed down by switching lenses and carrying a shoulder bag of weight that I may not use. ILCs are pretty mediocre at capturing the spontaneous moments of life that I use the GFX100rf for.
Lukacs wrote
-Where do yo find X100VI mushy at pixel level? If at F4 on center than the problem may the too high pixel density of the sensor, at f2-2.8 close to edges the reason is the lens performance. If you are ok with f4 center sharpness than an X-T5 is a possible ILCE alternative, but only with top tier primes, like 18 f1.4 or 33 f1.4. Or you can just resize to 24MP if you want better pixel level sharpness.- - -
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I can make excellent (salable) 20” x 30” print using my XT5. Do your requirements exceed that? If not, there is little reason to give up the full controls, the interface, and the small size of that camera for the larger format.Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF,...Show more →
I currently own a GFX100rf after trying the Nikon Zf/z5ii and the x100vi when it first came out. The IBIS in the x100vi is indeed small but that is mostly due to smaller sensors requiring smaller movements to correct them. A larger IBIS unit for medium format takes quite a lot more space than a ASPC one and would add much more than a few millimeters larger body to support them and would generate a substantial amount of heat. I could see some OIS potentially being in any future GFX100rf releases but IBIS is mostly useful for telephoto focal lengths and reducing any sort of movement from the focal plane shutter. If Fujifilm could find a way to add stabilization to future GFX100rf's without adding bulk or heat to the camera that would be fantastic and I would be one of the sheep preordering. I just don't think that's realistic.
More power to anyone who wants to carry a trio of lenses around daily. I prefer to move through the world as weightless and unabated as possible. I have no problem losing resolution to cropping when it's a 100mp but I don't want to be slowed down by switching lenses and carrying a shoulder bag of weight that I may not use. ILCs are pretty mediocre at capturing the spontaneous moments of life that I use the GFX100rf for.
May 15, 2026 at 10:43 AM
p.2 #2GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
JustAHouseCat wrote:
I once made a 40” wide print of a XT5 shot using the 27mm f2.8 at f5.6 just to see how it would turn out… and it actually looked quite good.
- - -
Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.The biggest reason most people have for higher than 40MP is better cropping and less false colors/moire. The real question is how much do you actually use IBIS on a 28mm lens. It's more useful on telephotos but with with wider angles I essentially only use it for night time suburban landscapes. I don't really miss it on a camera like this since it could never replace an ILC and instead is meant for traveling/street/documentary work.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.I do half of my photography on Fujifilm x-trans, and I don’t see problems with “false colors/moire.”
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.x-trans still experiences false colors and moire it's just better at them at the cost of software not being optimized for and under some circumstances noise looking weird and worm like.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.These days IBIS barely adds any bulk or weight to cameras — the mechanism has become quite small. I have never heard of anyone having a real world problem with heart generated by I IS.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)I currently own a GFX100rf after trying the Nikon Zf/z5ii and the x100vi when it first came out. The IBIS in the x100vi is indeed small but that is mostly due to smaller sensors requiring smaller movements to correct them. A larger IBIS unit for medium format takes quite a lot more space than a ASPC one and would add much more than a few millimeters larger body to support them and would generate a substantial amount of heat. I could see some OIS potentially being in any future GFX100rf releases but IBIS is mostly useful for telephoto focal lengths...Show more →
Not a heat issue, but size, yes. But look at how they miniaturized IBIS from the original GFX 100 to the current generation.
Not sure OIS would fit in a pancake lens like the RF has.
A small f/4 standard zoom on an ILC is far more versatile than the RF, though perhaps not as discrete and as fun to use. Results with the ILC would not be “mediocre” though using one may make you feel that way personally, which might affect your creative drive.
gdanmitchell wrote
Lukacs wrote
-Where do yo find X100VI mushy at pixel level? If at F4 on center than the problem may the too high pixel density of the sensor, at f2-2.8 close to edges the reason is the lens performance. If you are ok with f4 center sharpness than an X-T5 is a possible ILCE alternative, but only with top tier primes, like 18 f1.4 or 33 f1.4. Or you can just resize to 24MP if you want better pixel level sharpness.- - -
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I can make excellent (salable) 20” x 30” print using my XT5. Do your requirements exceed that? If not, there is little reason to give up the full controls, the interface, and the small size of that camera for the larger format.Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)
Not a heat issue, but size, yes. But look at how they miniaturized IBIS from the original GFX 100 to the current generation.
Not sure OIS would fit in a pancake lens like the RF has.
A small f/4 standard zoom on an ILC is far more versatile than the RF, though perhaps not as discrete and as fun to use. Results with the ILC would not be “mediocre” though using one may make you feel that way personally, which might affect your creative drive.
May 15, 2026 at 10:54 AM
p.2 #3GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
Something else regarding the 100RF:
The 100RF’s 35mm lens has a 20cm minimum focus distance. Even with its wide angle of view, it has a magnification of 0.29x, right behind the GF 120 at 0.5x and ahead of the GF 250 at 0.22x.
To put this in perspective, the Leica Q3 only focuses down to 30cm in non-macro mode.
X100VI – 0.51x
GF 120 – 0.50x
100RF – 0.29x
Leica Q3 – 0.26x (macro mode)
GF 250 – 0.22x
GF 100-200 – 0.20x
GF 63 – 0.17x
GF 55 – 0.17x
GF 80 – 0.15x
GF 30 – 0.15x
GF 45 – 0.14x
GF 45-100 – 0.13x
Leica Q3 – 0.12x (non-macro mode)
GF 50 – 0.10x
The 100RF’s 35mm lens has a 20cm minimum focus distance. Even with its wide angle of view, it has a magnification of 0.29x, right behind the GF 120 at 0.5x and ahead of the GF 250 at 0.22x.
To put this in perspective, the Leica Q3 only focuses down to 30cm in non-macro mode.
X100VI – 0.51x
GF 120 – 0.50x
100RF – 0.29x
Leica Q3 – 0.26x (macro mode)
GF 250 – 0.22x
GF 100-200 – 0.20x
GF 63 – 0.17x
GF 55 – 0.17x
GF 80 – 0.15x
GF 30 – 0.15x
GF 45 – 0.14x
GF 45-100 – 0.13x
Leica Q3 – 0.12x (non-macro mode)
GF 50 – 0.10x
May 15, 2026 at 11:20 AM
p.2 #4GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
highdesertmesa wrote:
I once made a 40” wide print of a XT5 shot using the 27mm f2.8 at f5.6 just to see how it would turn out… and it actually looked quite good.
- - -
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.I do half of my photography on Fujifilm x-trans, and I don’t see problems with “false colors/moire.”
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.x-trans still experiences false colors and moire it's just better at them at the cost of software not being optimized for and under some circumstances noise looking weird and worm like.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.These days IBIS barely adds any bulk or weight to cameras — the mechanism has become quite small. I have never heard of anyone having a real world problem with heart generated by I IS.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)I currently own a GFX100rf after trying the Nikon Zf/z5ii and the x100vi when it first came out. The IBIS in the x100vi is indeed small but that is mostly due to smaller sensors requiring smaller movements to correct them. A larger IBIS unit for medium format takes quite a lot more space than a ASPC one and would add much more than a few millimeters larger body to support them and would generate a substantial amount of heat. I could see some OIS potentially being in any future GFX100rf releases but IBIS is mostly useful for telephoto focal lengths and reducing any sort of movement from the focal plane shutter. If Fujifilm could find a way to add stabilization to future GFX100rf's without adding bulk or heat to the camera that would be fantastic and I would be one of the sheep preordering. I just don't think that's realistic.
More power to anyone who wants to carry a trio of lenses around daily. I prefer to move through the world as weightless and unabated as possible. I have no problem losing resolution to cropping when it's a 100mp but I don't want to be slowed down by switching lenses and carrying a shoulder bag of weight that I may not use. ILCs are pretty mediocre at capturing the spontaneous moments of life that I use the GFX100rf for.Not a heat issue, but size, yes. But look at how they miniaturized IBIS from the original GFX 100 to the current generation.
Not sure OIS would fit in a pancake lens like the RF has.
A small f/4 standard zoom on an ILC is far more versatile than the RF, though perhaps not as discrete and as fun to use. Results with the ILC would not be “mediocre” though using one may make you feel that way personally, which might affect your creative drive.
No it definitely creates heat that both effects sensor read noise as well as just general comfort. The x100vi gets pretty hot if you are using a lot of stabilization and I don't really know what you get out of it in a camera like that.
I also just disagree about zoom lenses. Modern ones are sharp but they still render very flat, low micro contrast images. I would rather just zoom with my feet and have a lens with better IQ and less weight. They make sense to me in that 85mm+ telephoto range IMO.
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
Lukacs wrote
-Where do yo find X100VI mushy at pixel level? If at F4 on center than the problem may the too high pixel density of the sensor, at f2-2.8 close to edges the reason is the lens performance. If you are ok with f4 center sharpness than an X-T5 is a possible ILCE alternative, but only with top tier primes, like 18 f1.4 or 33 f1.4. Or you can just resize to 24MP if you want better pixel level sharpness.- - -
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
The biggest reason most people have for higher than 40MP is better cropping and less false colors/moire. The real question is how much do you actually use IBIS on a 28mm lens. It's more useful on telephotos but with with wider angles I essentially only use it for night time suburban landscapes. I don't really miss it on a camera like this since it could never replace an ILC and instead is meant for traveling/street/documentary work.I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)
More power to anyone who wants to carry a trio of lenses around daily. I prefer to move through the world as weightless and unabated as possible. I have no problem losing resolution to cropping when it's a 100mp but I don't want to be slowed down by switching lenses and carrying a shoulder bag of weight that I may not use. ILCs are pretty mediocre at capturing the spontaneous moments of life that I use the GFX100rf for.
Not sure OIS would fit in a pancake lens like the RF has.
A small f/4 standard zoom on an ILC is far more versatile than the RF, though perhaps not as discrete and as fun to use. Results with the ILC would not be “mediocre” though using one may make you feel that way personally, which might affect your creative drive.
No it definitely creates heat that both effects sensor read noise as well as just general comfort. The x100vi gets pretty hot if you are using a lot of stabilization and I don't really know what you get out of it in a camera like that.
I also just disagree about zoom lenses. Modern ones are sharp but they still render very flat, low micro contrast images. I would rather just zoom with my feet and have a lens with better IQ and less weight. They make sense to me in that 85mm+ telephoto range IMO.
May 15, 2026 at 11:21 AM
p.2 #5GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
JustAHouseCat wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
Lukacs wrote
-Where do yo find X100VI mushy at pixel level? If at F4 on center than the problem may the too high pixel density of the sensor, at f2-2.8 close to edges the reason is the lens performance. If you are ok with f4 center sharpness than an X-T5 is a possible ILCE alternative, but only with top tier primes, like 18 f1.4 or 33 f1.4. Or you can just resize to 24MP if you want better pixel level sharpness.- - -
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I do half of my photography on Fujifilm x-trans, and I don’t see problems with “false colors/moire.”I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)
More power to anyone who wants to carry a trio of lenses around daily. I prefer to move through the world as weightless and unabated as possible. I have no problem losing resolution to cropping when it's a 100mp but I don't want to be slowed down by switching lenses and carrying a shoulder bag of weight that I may not use. ILCs are pretty mediocre at capturing the spontaneous moments of life that I use the GFX100rf for.
Not sure OIS would fit in a pancake lens like the RF has.
A small f/4 standard zoom on an ILC is far more versatile than the RF, though perhaps not as discrete and as fun to use. Results with the ILC would not be “mediocre” though using one may make you feel that way personally, which might affect your creative drive.
I also just disagree about zoom lenses. Modern ones are sharp but they still render very flat, low micro contrast images. I would rather just zoom with my feet and have a lens with better IQ and less weight. They make sense to me in that 85mm+ telephoto range IMO.
The X100V gets just as warm and in the same place as the 100VI. I felt no new heat due to adding IBIS to the 100VI.
I don’t think we need to rehash primes versus zooms here, but I’d hardly call zoom lens results “mediocre” — that’s hyperbole.
May 15, 2026 at 11:41 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #6GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.
May 15, 2026 at 04:17 PM
p.2 #7GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
For a fun camera, I would look for a completely different experience. With what you have, that would be a rangefinder, or a leaf shutter if you use strobes, or tilt-and-shift lenses, or old exotic film cameras. Try them all, buy used, and find what suits you until the next wave of GAS hits.I tried the X-T4, X-T5, X-H2, and X100V, and while all of them are nice, I never made peace with their autofocus issues. There was also something a bit off with the 40 MP sensor, but I did not have it long enough to understand what it was. I was happy with the GFX 50S II except for its overall speed, and I am happy now with the GFX 100S II. For me personally it has the best ergonomics of them all. I use the Z8, and I mostly like it except for its size. I am trying the Q3, and while it produces fine images, it is not really compact, it is odd, and I do not really like it, except for the leaf shutter when used with strobes. Most Sony cameras are small enough and fast enough to replace both the Z8 and a compact camera, but I will probably hold on to my Z8 a while longer. I also use a film TLR and rangefinder cameras when I want a different experience.
May 15, 2026 at 10:14 PM
p.2 #8GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
I don’t “carry a trio of lenses around daily.”
My day to day norm is to carry the XT5 with only the 27mm f2.8 pancake.
For travel, when I want a bit more flexibility/adaptability, I bring along the 14mm and 50mm lenses. I may carry one or both of them in addition to the 27mm or leave them behind as circumstances warrant.
I am not “burdened” by this. I travel extensively, including internationally, for weeks or months with only carry-on luggage — a overhead bin size backpack plus a small shoulder bag.
Or, in the case of my current travels (writing from northern Scotland) there are landscape options. So I brought just one prime, the 27mm, plus two zooms more suitable to the potential subjects.
In other words, this approach lets me choose anything from a tiny system (XT5 with only the tiny pancake) to something more adaptable and flexible as photographic circumstances warrant.
JustAHouseCat wrote:
I once made a 40” wide print of a XT5 shot using the 27mm f2.8 at f5.6 just to see how it would turn out… and it actually looked quite good.
- - -
Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.The biggest reason most people have for higher than 40MP is better cropping and less false colors/moire. The real question is how much do you actually use IBIS on a 28mm lens. It's more useful on telephotos but with with wider angles I essentially only use it for night time suburban landscapes. I don't really miss it on a camera like this since it could never replace an ILC and instead is meant for traveling/street/documentary work.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.I do half of my photography on Fujifilm x-trans, and I don’t see problems with “false colors/moire.”
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.x-trans still experiences false colors and moire it's just better at them at the cost of software not being optimized for and under some circumstances noise looking weird and worm like.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.These days IBIS barely adds any bulk or weight to cameras — the mechanism has become quite small. I have never heard of anyone having a real world problem with heart generated by I IS.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)I currently own a GFX100rf after trying the Nikon Zf/z5ii and the x100vi when it first came out. The IBIS in the x100vi is indeed small but that is mostly due to smaller sensors requiring smaller movements to correct them. A larger IBIS unit for medium format takes quite a lot more space than a ASPC one and would add much more than a few millimeters larger body to support them and would generate a substantial amount of heat. I could see some OIS potentially being in any future GFX100rf releases but IBIS is mostly useful for telephoto focal lengths...Show more →
Edited on May 16, 2026 at 03:39 PM · View previous versions
My day to day norm is to carry the XT5 with only the 27mm f2.8 pancake.
For travel, when I want a bit more flexibility/adaptability, I bring along the 14mm and 50mm lenses. I may carry one or both of them in addition to the 27mm or leave them behind as circumstances warrant.
I am not “burdened” by this. I travel extensively, including internationally, for weeks or months with only carry-on luggage — a overhead bin size backpack plus a small shoulder bag.
Or, in the case of my current travels (writing from northern Scotland) there are landscape options. So I brought just one prime, the 27mm, plus two zooms more suitable to the potential subjects.
In other words, this approach lets me choose anything from a tiny system (XT5 with only the tiny pancake) to something more adaptable and flexible as photographic circumstances warrant.
JustAHouseCat wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
Lukacs wrote
-Where do yo find X100VI mushy at pixel level? If at F4 on center than the problem may the too high pixel density of the sensor, at f2-2.8 close to edges the reason is the lens performance. If you are ok with f4 center sharpness than an X-T5 is a possible ILCE alternative, but only with top tier primes, like 18 f1.4 or 33 f1.4. Or you can just resize to 24MP if you want better pixel level sharpness.- - -
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
I can make excellent (salable) 20” x 30” print using my XT5. Do your requirements exceed that? If not, there is little reason to give up the full controls, the interface, and the small size of that camera for the larger format.Indeed, if you work carefully and then zoom way in on images on your computer screen the larger format can record a bit more detail… that you are unlikely to see in normal reproductions, even at relatively large sizes.
And you can select the lenses that best match your needs and preferences. Put one of the Fuji pancakes on it and the package is very small, or switch to any other lens that suits you needs.
I do wish the lens was f/2.8 and a bit bigger even if this camera is mostly made for shooting slower apertures.
I definitely use IBIS on wide lenses, especially for interiors and for night street photography. It is one of those features with no real downside and plenty of real-world upsides.
It still just seems bizarre to me that people would spend twice the price or more to carry a larger camera with limited maximum aperture and a wide angle lens that must be cropped for a whole lot of shots… when they could have an excellent smaller, lighter camera with exactly the lens(es) they need that will produce quality that, in some cases, exceeds the cropped images they’ll end up with on the larger fixed-lens, non-IBIS camera.
The reason is resolving power and weight. IBIS has a downside in making cameras larger and hotter. I wouldn't hate if it was in the GFX100RF but truthfully I don't need it for a camera like that. It would only ruin the camera by making it bigger for something most people barely use. You can handhold the thing down to like 1/30th pretty easily and if your careful 1/15th. I don't need to go lower on that. I also don't want a little camera and a bag of lenses. Changing lenses in the field is a vibe kill and it just means you are spending less on a camera and more on buying a collection of lenses. I have done that for nikon but truthfully I do 90% of my shooting at either 28mm or 35mm. 100mp in a compact package is better for that then something 40mp with a bag full of lenses.
“Bag full of lenses” sounds pretty dire, doesn’t it? ;-)
For street and travel I carry three: 14mm f2.8, 27mm f2.8, 50mm f2. Tiny load.
I sense that you REALLY want to own a RF, and that there is some motivated reasoning going on here. ;-)
Edited on May 16, 2026 at 03:39 PM · View previous versions
May 16, 2026 at 12:51 AM
p.2 #9GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
RoamingScott wrote:
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.
Interesting. I would occasionally feel the VI get warm on the back right side by my palm, but it never felt hot (just like the V). I did keep all the wireless functions on my VI turned off, so maybe that helped.
If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
May 16, 2026 at 09:18 AM
p.2 #10GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
Little surprised at only one has mention of the Leica Q for a compact EDC solution.
Had a 50R. Miss the controls. Found out quickly that I need IBIS.
Upgraded to GFX100S. Never really use it. Takes great images of course. Not much fun to use. Do not like the controls at all.
Really like the X-T5 but it mostly sits at home as I tend to grab the A1 II first for an ILC.
Really enjoy the experience of the Q2 Reporter. Lovely to shoot. Dig the overall vibe. Happy with the IQ. Easy as a daily carry.
I love the idea of the 100RF but the wide F4 is a showstopper for me.
Have fun with the decision process - that in itself is a lot of fun (for me at least)
Had a 50R. Miss the controls. Found out quickly that I need IBIS.
Upgraded to GFX100S. Never really use it. Takes great images of course. Not much fun to use. Do not like the controls at all.Really like the X-T5 but it mostly sits at home as I tend to grab the A1 II first for an ILC.
Really enjoy the experience of the Q2 Reporter. Lovely to shoot. Dig the overall vibe. Happy with the IQ. Easy as a daily carry.
I love the idea of the 100RF but the wide F4 is a showstopper for me.
Have fun with the decision process - that in itself is a lot of fun (for me at least)
May 16, 2026 at 09:57 AM
|
p.2 #11GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
highdesertmesa wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
Ibis is one of the few parts with mechanical motion inside the camera and one of the largest power draws. It's definitely responsible for extra heat. If you need it or want it though the trade is worth it. I just don't think a camera like the x100vi or the gfx100rf really do much shooting that makes good use of it.
May 16, 2026 at 11:00 AM
p.2 #12GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
JustAHouseCat wrote:
Interesting. I would occasionally feel the VI get warm on the back right side by my palm, but it never felt hot (just like the V). I did keep all the wireless functions on my VI turned off, so maybe that helped.
If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.Ibis is one of the few parts with mechanical motion inside the camera and one of the largest power draws. It's definitely responsible for extra heat. If you need it or want it though the trade is worth it. I just don't think a camera like the x100vi or the gfx100rf really do much shooting that makes good use of it.
IBIS is engineered as a system, which includes heat sinks and other cooling measures. They don't just add the IBIS mech and dust off their hands and say done. In any case, I never noticed a difference – both ran a little warm in the palm on occasion – neither ever felt hot.
highdesertmesa wrote
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
IBIS is engineered as a system, which includes heat sinks and other cooling measures. They don't just add the IBIS mech and dust off their hands and say done. In any case, I never noticed a difference – both ran a little warm in the palm on occasion – neither ever felt hot.
May 16, 2026 at 03:21 PM
p.2 #13GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
I never have noticed the XT5 getting hot.
May 16, 2026 at 03:37 PM
p.2 #14GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
gdanmitchell wrote:
I never have noticed the XT5 getting hot.
X-T5 runs cool as a cucumber. I regret selling mine.
I desperately wish Fujifilm would make an ICL GFX with the exact same top dial layout. Don't care whether ISO dial is separate like the X-T5 or combined with the shutter speed dial like on the 100VI/100RF.
I never have noticed the XT5 getting hot.
X-T5 runs cool as a cucumber. I regret selling mine.
I desperately wish Fujifilm would make an ICL GFX with the exact same top dial layout. Don't care whether ISO dial is separate like the X-T5 or combined with the shutter speed dial like on the 100VI/100RF.
May 16, 2026 at 05:59 PM
p.2 #15GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
highdesertmesa wrote:
JustAHouseCat wrote
highdesertmesa wrote
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
Yep that's what would add the bulk to a gfx100rf.
May 17, 2026 at 09:39 AM
p.2 #16GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
highdesertmesa wrote:
X-T5 runs cool as a cucumber. I regret selling mine.
I desperately wish Fujifilm would make an ICL GFX with the exact same top dial layout. Don't care whether ISO dial is separate like the X-T5 or combined with the shutter speed dial like on the 100VI/100RF.
X-T5 controls on a GFX would be my dream GFX. I am slowly paring down my GFX kit as it just sits these days. A body with X-T style controls is the only thing that would get me back into it.
And I’ve never once sensed the X-T5 getting warm.
gdanmitchell wrote
I never have noticed the XT5 getting hot.I desperately wish Fujifilm would make an ICL GFX with the exact same top dial layout. Don't care whether ISO dial is separate like the X-T5 or combined with the shutter speed dial like on the 100VI/100RF.
X-T5 controls on a GFX would be my dream GFX. I am slowly paring down my GFX kit as it just sits these days. A body with X-T style controls is the only thing that would get me back into it.
And I’ve never once sensed the X-T5 getting warm.
May 17, 2026 at 11:56 AM
p.2 #17GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
JustAHouseCat wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
highdesertmesa wrote
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
The lens would have to project a larger image circle as well, which means larger lens assembly and higher weight.
May 17, 2026 at 03:36 PM
p.2 #18GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
JustAHouseCat wrote:
highdesertmesa wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
highdesertmesa wrote
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
There was a minor increase in thickness between the X100V and VI, so I guess scale that difference up about 4x.
May 17, 2026 at 07:53 PM
p.2 #19GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
Makten wrote:
JustAHouseCat wrote
highdesertmesa wrote
JustAHouseCat wrote
highdesertmesa wrote
RoamingScott wrote
My VI definitely got hotter than my V. I used them side by side once I noticed it to confirm.If there is a difference, it’s difficult to attribute it to just IBIS as someone suggested since they have different processors.
A larger lens with OIS might make more sense than IBIS.
May 17, 2026 at 07:57 PM
p.2 #20GFX100RF or X-T5 for user experience (compared to GFX 100s)
Lots of helpful feedback here from everyone. Thought I’d give an update in case anyone else is looking to answer a similar quandary.
This post was particularly good for my thought process. With the 50R so relatively expensive, it just doesn’t make sense for me right now. I managed to try a (powered off) 100RF in store and it had absolutely wonderful handling. You are right, it really is like an X100. I got to use it side-by side with an X-T5 and the 100RF just felt much more solid. And they had a Q2 there as well, and that confirmed that’s really not the right route for me.
And to those that mentioned this: I’ll dig up those X100 files eventually, but they just felt soft and a bit worm-ey at times. Could definitely be user error or compression artifacts, but I also never gelled with the bokeh rendering of the 23mm f/2.
I thought about the images I get from 35mm at f/4 on the 20-35mm, and that’s not what I’m looking for here. For hiking/backpacking, or as a second body while traveling, the 100RF makes all the sense in the world. But for me personally, I’ve realized a $4000 unstablized 28mm f/3.2 100MP view of the world doesn’t suit taking casual photos at family gatherings, out with friends, or whenever I happen upon good light while traveling or commuting.
When I tried the 100RF in store, I saw a used LX100 on the shelf and asked to try it. Loved the rendering of the lens and the focal length so much that I went ahead and ordered the new Lumix L10. Seems to be everything I’m looking for (full frame 75mm f/6 equivalent on the long end is just enough for portraits imo) other than weather sealed, and between insurance and my shooting habits, adding sealing is not worth $2500 to me. I’ll pick up a G1X3 (or whatever new model Canon or Sony or Fuji eventually figure out) or X-T4 if and when I need weather sealed capability in a small body. But it’s been years since I’ve shot anything besides sports in the rain and can always use the bigger gear if I want something more rugged. For my usage, this time I think less is more!
highdesertmesa wrote:
I enjoyed my X100F that I sold to move to the 50R. I did not gel with the X100VI that I tried for a bit. Technically an excellent camera, but images felt “mushy” and detail just seemed absent at a pixel level relative to most other cameras I’ve used (including the X100F). Maybe I had a dud. I swapped that for a Sony Rx1Rii, and love the output of the 35mm f/2 and 42mp sensor but don’t love the ergonomics. Occasionally use it for people photos but enjoy it for hikes, travel, good light at random events, etc.
For reasonably small compact use, I have the Canon Powershot V1. Might pick up a Ricoh or something truly pocketable eventually, but that’s not about the shooting experience exactly. Having handled a Q3 in store briefly I’m not super interested in the size/weight/density of the Leica Q series. I prefer more of a grip.
Looking at three options. For around $2000, I could just rebuy a 50R or get a XT4 or XT5 kit with a pancake and either the 75mm 1.2 or the 23mm 1.4. For anyone who has used both the X100vi and the X-T5, is the 40MP sensor capable of more than I experienced on the X100? (or is the X-T4 and 26mp sensor the way to go?) I know the format’s limitations, but I got some really ugly almost worm-like noise on some of my compressed X100VI RAWs and I’m not eager to repeat that experience. I’d keep the RX1R here and use it when it’s rendering made it worth the hassle.
The other option I’m thinking about is selling the Rx1R and picking up a GFX100RF instead. I know there’s a 1,700 post thread on it, but I don’t want to go through that all. Basically, I’m wondering whether it’s a fun camera to use in practice. Might be worth renting one but just wanted to hear others’ experiences first. Not thrilled to need to add a filter for weather sealing, but maybe that doesn’t bulk up the camera too much in practice.
My goal is to have a camera that’s enjoyable to use, that’s weather sealed, and is reasonably compact for carrying around and throwing in a bag as a backup/second body beside a primary system (e.g. R5 with 70-200 or 100S with 110mm). Good color output as loaded to Lightroom is a strong preference. I print every now and again but value color above most else.
A true compact that takes good portraits would be lovely, but I’m not sure that really exists (Rx1 is about as close as we get). I’m between getting a small X-kit or a GFX100RF for a pleasant shooting experience and a kit that can go with me anywhere without being 5lbs on my shoulder. Interested to hear your thoughts!Some thoughts:
— Repurchasing the 50R in like new condition will cost you closer to $2,800 right now, which IMO is an overinflated price due to YouTubers rediscovering it in the last year. The 50S is a far better value at around $2,000 for like new and feels much better made, whereas the 50R feels a bit cheap to me (and no ISO dial or 3-way tilt screen).
— Auto white balance on all Fujifilm cameras can be biased any direction you want in the menu. 50R was notorious for being too magenta, so you probably started to think of that as...Show more →
This post was particularly good for my thought process. With the 50R so relatively expensive, it just doesn’t make sense for me right now. I managed to try a (powered off) 100RF in store and it had absolutely wonderful handling. You are right, it really is like an X100. I got to use it side-by side with an X-T5 and the 100RF just felt much more solid. And they had a Q2 there as well, and that confirmed that’s really not the right route for me.
And to those that mentioned this: I’ll dig up those X100 files eventually, but they just felt soft and a bit worm-ey at times. Could definitely be user error or compression artifacts, but I also never gelled with the bokeh rendering of the 23mm f/2.
I thought about the images I get from 35mm at f/4 on the 20-35mm, and that’s not what I’m looking for here. For hiking/backpacking, or as a second body while traveling, the 100RF makes all the sense in the world. But for me personally, I’ve realized a $4000 unstablized 28mm f/3.2 100MP view of the world doesn’t suit taking casual photos at family gatherings, out with friends, or whenever I happen upon good light while traveling or commuting.
When I tried the 100RF in store, I saw a used LX100 on the shelf and asked to try it. Loved the rendering of the lens and the focal length so much that I went ahead and ordered the new Lumix L10. Seems to be everything I’m looking for (full frame 75mm f/6 equivalent on the long end is just enough for portraits imo) other than weather sealed, and between insurance and my shooting habits, adding sealing is not worth $2500 to me. I’ll pick up a G1X3 (or whatever new model Canon or Sony or Fuji eventually figure out) or X-T4 if and when I need weather sealed capability in a small body. But it’s been years since I’ve shot anything besides sports in the rain and can always use the bigger gear if I want something more rugged. For my usage, this time I think less is more!
highdesertmesa wrote:
drimer wrote
Hoping to get some input and figure out what direction might make sense. Sold my 50R to pay for the 100S and still miss using it. Felt very tactile and intuitive. Don’t really feel like the 100s has “soul” and have been fairly disappointed with its white balance performance (always too green and often too cool). But of course it takes great images. Primary cameras are Canon R5 and R3. Most of this gear feels very utilitarian and I miss the classic styling/tactile experience of using some of the other Fujis.I enjoyed my X100F that I sold to move to the 50R. I did not gel with the X100VI that I tried for a bit. Technically an excellent camera, but images felt “mushy” and detail just seemed absent at a pixel level relative to most other cameras I’ve used (including the X100F). Maybe I had a dud. I swapped that for a Sony Rx1Rii, and love the output of the 35mm f/2 and 42mp sensor but don’t love the ergonomics. Occasionally use it for people photos but enjoy it for hikes, travel, good light at random events, etc.
For reasonably small compact use, I have the Canon Powershot V1. Might pick up a Ricoh or something truly pocketable eventually, but that’s not about the shooting experience exactly. Having handled a Q3 in store briefly I’m not super interested in the size/weight/density of the Leica Q series. I prefer more of a grip.
Looking at three options. For around $2000, I could just rebuy a 50R or get a XT4 or XT5 kit with a pancake and either the 75mm 1.2 or the 23mm 1.4. For anyone who has used both the X100vi and the X-T5, is the 40MP sensor capable of more than I experienced on the X100? (or is the X-T4 and 26mp sensor the way to go?) I know the format’s limitations, but I got some really ugly almost worm-like noise on some of my compressed X100VI RAWs and I’m not eager to repeat that experience. I’d keep the RX1R here and use it when it’s rendering made it worth the hassle.
The other option I’m thinking about is selling the Rx1R and picking up a GFX100RF instead. I know there’s a 1,700 post thread on it, but I don’t want to go through that all. Basically, I’m wondering whether it’s a fun camera to use in practice. Might be worth renting one but just wanted to hear others’ experiences first. Not thrilled to need to add a filter for weather sealing, but maybe that doesn’t bulk up the camera too much in practice.
My goal is to have a camera that’s enjoyable to use, that’s weather sealed, and is reasonably compact for carrying around and throwing in a bag as a backup/second body beside a primary system (e.g. R5 with 70-200 or 100S with 110mm). Good color output as loaded to Lightroom is a strong preference. I print every now and again but value color above most else.
A true compact that takes good portraits would be lovely, but I’m not sure that really exists (Rx1 is about as close as we get). I’m between getting a small X-kit or a GFX100RF for a pleasant shooting experience and a kit that can go with me anywhere without being 5lbs on my shoulder. Interested to hear your thoughts!
— Repurchasing the 50R in like new condition will cost you closer to $2,800 right now, which IMO is an overinflated price due to YouTubers rediscovering it in the last year. The 50S is a far better value at around $2,000 for like new and feels much better made, whereas the 50R feels a bit cheap to me (and no ISO dial or 3-way tilt screen).
— Auto white balance on all Fujifilm cameras can be biased any direction you want in the menu. 50R was notorious for being too magenta, so you probably started to think of that as...Show more →
Jun 20, 2026 at 05:54 PM