GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
p.3 #1GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
To understand my response, read the OP’s reply. Then understand why even those “other things” that you go on about may seem irrelevant to his needs.
To understand my response, you have to think about how many times in how many threads you go on as if resolution is the ONLY reason for choosing a "better" camera. It's not, but you never seem to realize that.
Your only goal around here seems to be that no one should buy a "mini MF" camera, just because you are telling yourself that YOU don't need one. It's quite tiring.
To understand my response, read the OP’s reply. Then understand why even those “other things” that you go on about may seem irrelevant to his needs.
To understand my response, you have to think about how many times in how many threads you go on as if resolution is the ONLY reason for choosing a "better" camera. It's not, but you never seem to realize that.
Your only goal around here seems to be that no one should buy a "mini MF" camera, just because you are telling yourself that YOU don't need one. It's quite tiring.
May 31, 2026 at 01:46 PM
p.3 #2GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
I read Dan's post at the end of the previous page and also thought that it was a reflection on his personal experience, that hasn't been too happy as it sounds.
I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of how to take advantage of the extra dynamic range and the larger number of pixels that a GFX100 offers vs. the FF alternatives. In fact, their interests are elsewhere. The recent Sony A7RVI thread is revealing: the discussion seems to be mostly concerned with the sensor readout time and whether there should be a wing distortion in photos of flying birds. These types of photographers should find the GFX a ridiculous camera.
There seems to be little interest in dynamic range and image quality in general, the (naive) argument often being that the modern denoising makes ISO 12800 images look like taken at ISO 100. This just shows how shallow is the understanding and how low are the expectaions of some people.
Then there are a good number of photographers who are obsessed with ever smaller and lighter camera systems. These are easily fatigued by even an average FF camera, and should find the GFX an abomination.
I have a FF camera (Sony A1), two micro-four-thirds (OM-1 II and G9II), and more recently, since December 2025, the GFX100S II. A camera is an instrument, and I have reasonably successfully used all of my cameras. Having said that, the GFX100S II is now the camera I use all the time. The ergonomics of the body is near perfect to me (I won't mind a deeper grip however). The opportunity to save six custom sets is a dream come true, and I like the uncluttered body style with the relatively small number of buttons. I know this is different from what most FF photographers should like.
Ultimately, I feel that my GFX100S II is an outstanding camera, and the GF lenses make it a top choice of a system for anyone who cares about image quality above everything else. The enlarged 4 x 3 format vs. 3 x 2 is an added bonus of the system.
I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of how to take advantage of the extra dynamic range and the larger number of pixels that a GFX100 offers vs. the FF alternatives. In fact, their interests are elsewhere. The recent Sony A7RVI thread is revealing: the discussion seems to be mostly concerned with the sensor readout time and whether there should be a wing distortion in photos of flying birds. These types of photographers should find the GFX a ridiculous camera.
There seems to be little interest in dynamic range and image quality in general, the (naive) argument often being that the modern denoising makes ISO 12800 images look like taken at ISO 100. This just shows how shallow is the understanding and how low are the expectaions of some people.
Then there are a good number of photographers who are obsessed with ever smaller and lighter camera systems. These are easily fatigued by even an average FF camera, and should find the GFX an abomination.
I have a FF camera (Sony A1), two micro-four-thirds (OM-1 II and G9II), and more recently, since December 2025, the GFX100S II. A camera is an instrument, and I have reasonably successfully used all of my cameras. Having said that, the GFX100S II is now the camera I use all the time. The ergonomics of the body is near perfect to me (I won't mind a deeper grip however). The opportunity to save six custom sets is a dream come true, and I like the uncluttered body style with the relatively small number of buttons. I know this is different from what most FF photographers should like.
Ultimately, I feel that my GFX100S II is an outstanding camera, and the GF lenses make it a top choice of a system for anyone who cares about image quality above everything else. The enlarged 4 x 3 format vs. 3 x 2 is an added bonus of the system.
May 31, 2026 at 05:01 PM
p.3 #3GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
I hear you.
You don’t like (nor do you address the validity of) the points I make. You just think I should shut up, apparently because your feelings are hurt. (Oddly, you have nothing critical to say to the poster before me who first brought up these issues.)
Apparently, anything less than pure praise for the miniMF format is heresy in your world, and miniMF is the best and most perfect choice for all photographers.
But I was not posting for you. These are facts that should be considered by people like our OP, who can then apply them and make their own decisions..
Makten wrote:
To understand my response, you have to think about how many times in how many threads you go on as if resolution is the ONLY reason for choosing a "better" camera. It's not, but you never seem to realize that.
Your only goal around here seems to be that no one should buy a "mini MF" camera, just because you are telling yourself that YOU don't need one. It's quite tiring.
You don’t like (nor do you address the validity of) the points I make. You just think I should shut up, apparently because your feelings are hurt. (Oddly, you have nothing critical to say to the poster before me who first brought up these issues.)
Apparently, anything less than pure praise for the miniMF format is heresy in your world, and miniMF is the best and most perfect choice for all photographers.
But I was not posting for you. These are facts that should be considered by people like our OP, who can then apply them and make their own decisions..
Makten wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
To understand my response, read the OP’s reply. Then understand why even those “other things” that you go on about may seem irrelevant to his needs.Your only goal around here seems to be that no one should buy a "mini MF" camera, just because you are telling yourself that YOU don't need one. It's quite tiring.
Jun 01, 2026 at 12:34 AM
p.3 #4GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Reverting to straw man and insults = ignore button (again).
Jun 01, 2026 at 01:58 AM
p.3 #5GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
I appreciate the respectful reply and focus on the actual issue here. While we do not come down in exactly the same place, I feel like we could have the kind of respectful conversation about this that I have in person with my photography friends. Look me up if you are ever in the SF Bay Area.
ruthenium wrote:
I read Dan's post at the end of the previous page and also thought that it was a reflection on his personal experience, that hasn't been too happy as it sounds.
I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of...Show more →
ruthenium wrote:
I read Dan's post at the end of the previous page and also thought that it was a reflection on his personal experience, that hasn't been too happy as it sounds.
I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of...Show more →
Jun 01, 2026 at 02:40 AM
p.3 #6GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I appreciate the respectful reply and focus on the actual issue here. While we do not come down in exactly the same place, I feel like we could have the kind of respectful conversation about this that I have in person with my photography friends. Look me up if you are ever in the SF Bay Area.
ruthenium wrote
I read Dan's post at the end of the previous page and also thought that it was a reflection on his personal experience, that hasn't been too happy as it sounds.I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of how to take advantage of the extra dynamic range and the larger number of pixels that a GFX100 offers vs. the FF alternatives. In fact, their interests are elsewhere. The recent Sony A7RVI thread is revealing: the discussion seems to be mostly concerned with the sensor readout time and whether there should be a wing distortion in photos of flying birds. These types of photographers should find the GFX a ridiculous camera.
There seems to be little interest in dynamic range and image quality in general, the (naive) argument often being that the modern denoising makes ISO 12800 images look like taken at ISO 100. This just shows how shallow is the understanding and how low are the expectaions of some people.
Then there are a good number of photographers who are obsessed with ever smaller and lighter camera systems. These are easily fatigued by even an average FF camera, and should find the GFX an abomination.
I have a FF camera (Sony A1), two micro-four-thirds (OM-1 II and G9II), and more recently, since December 2025, the GFX100S II. A camera is an instrument, and I have reasonably successfully used all of my cameras. Having said that, the GFX100S II is now the camera I use all the time. The ergonomics of the body is near perfect to me (I won't mind a deeper grip however). The opportunity to save six custom sets is a dream come true, and I like the uncluttered body style with the relatively small number of buttons. I know this is different from what most FF photographers should like.
Ultimately, I feel that my GFX100S II is an outstanding camera, and the GF lenses make it a top choice of a system for anyone who cares about image quality above everything else. The enlarged 4 x 3 format vs. 3 x 2 is an added bonus of the system.
Meeting in SF would be great, I shall keep this in mind - thank you! I and my wife are now in Japan, until July 15 - presently in Okinawa and suffering from a typhoon that is almost exactly above us at the moment.
Jun 01, 2026 at 03:23 AM
p.3 #7GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
This discussion reminds me of the old Windows-vs-Mac debate—one that, at least in my view, we have fortunately moved past. Let everyone simply work with the tools they are happy with and find easiest to use! In photography today, we simply have a vast array of options—many of them truly excellent. By comparison, the photographers we often look up to today typically had to go to far greater lengths back in their time to produce their wonderful images.
Today, we have the choice of various sensor sizes, and even smartphones now capture surprisingly good images. Some artists—Paul Graham, for instance—deliberately work with a mix of high-end imagery and lower-quality shots taken with smartphones or simple, inexpensive cameras. I believe that anyone shooting with MFT, APS-C, full-frame, or GFX/Hasselblad systems has their own valid reasons for doing so. You can produce excellent work today with almost any modern camera, and we are certainly welcome to discuss the pros and cons of these systems here.
Today, we have the choice of various sensor sizes, and even smartphones now capture surprisingly good images. Some artists—Paul Graham, for instance—deliberately work with a mix of high-end imagery and lower-quality shots taken with smartphones or simple, inexpensive cameras. I believe that anyone shooting with MFT, APS-C, full-frame, or GFX/Hasselblad systems has their own valid reasons for doing so. You can produce excellent work today with almost any modern camera, and we are certainly welcome to discuss the pros and cons of these systems here.
Jun 01, 2026 at 05:39 AM
p.3 #8GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
We are in England until mid- June.
ruthenium wrote:
I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of how to take advantage of the extra dynamic range and the larger number of pixels that a GFX100 offers vs. the FF alternatives. In fact, their interests are elsewhere. The recent Sony A7RVI thread is revealing: the discussion seems to be mostly concerned with the sensor readout time and whether there should be a wing distortion in photos of flying birds. These types of photographers should find the GFX a ridiculous camera.
There seems to be little interest in dynamic range and image quality in general, the (naive) argument often being that the modern denoising makes ISO 12800 images look like taken at ISO 100. This just shows how shallow is the understanding and how low are the expectaions of some people.
Then there are a good number of photographers who are obsessed with ever smaller and lighter camera systems. These are easily fatigued by even an average FF camera, and should find the GFX an abomination.
I have a FF camera (Sony A1), two micro-four-thirds (OM-1 II and G9II), and more recently, since December 2025, the GFX100S II. A camera is an instrument, and I have reasonably successfully used all of my cameras. Having said that, the GFX100S II is now the camera I use all the time. The ergonomics of the body is near perfect to me (I won't mind a deeper grip however). The opportunity to save six custom sets is a dream come true, and I like the uncluttered body style with the relatively small number of buttons. I know this is different from what most FF photographers should like.
Ultimately, I feel that my GFX100S II is an outstanding camera, and the GF lenses make it a top choice of a system for anyone who cares about image quality above everything else. The enlarged 4 x 3 format vs. 3 x 2 is an added bonus of the system.Meeting in SF would be great, I shall keep this in mind - thank you! I and my wife are now in Japan, until July 15 - presently in Okinawa and suffering from a typhoon that is almost exactly above us at the moment.
- - -
There are excellent photographers producing excellent photography with every brand and format. I would argue that this is a golden age of photographic technologies.
mabra wrote:
This discussion reminds me of the old Windows-vs-Mac debate—one that, at least in my view, we have fortunately moved past. Let everyone simply work with the tools they are happy with and find easiest to use! In photography today, we simply have a vast array of options—many of them truly excellent. By comparison, the photographers we often look up to today typically had to go to far greater lengths back in their time to produce their wonderful images.
Today, we have the choice of various sensor sizes, and even smartphones now capture surprisingly good images. Some artists—Paul Graham, for instance—deliberately work...Show more →
ruthenium wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
I appreciate the respectful reply and focus on the actual issue here. While we do not come down in exactly the same place, I feel like we could have the kind of respectful conversation about this that I have in person with my photography friends. Look me up if you are ever in the SF Bay Area.ruthenium wrote
I read Dan's post at the end of the previous page and also thought that it was a reflection on his personal experience, that hasn't been too happy as it sounds.I partly agree with his opening statement "there are some people for whom and some situations for which the larger sensors make sense, but they are both very small in number." I disagree with the "very small in number ...situations" but do agree about the small number of people. I believe that most people, perhaps more than 95% of those who buy high-end cameras, don't have a good understanding of how to take advantage of the extra dynamic range and the larger number of pixels that a GFX100 offers vs. the FF alternatives. In fact, their interests are elsewhere. The recent Sony A7RVI thread is revealing: the discussion seems to be mostly concerned with the sensor readout time and whether there should be a wing distortion in photos of flying birds. These types of photographers should find the GFX a ridiculous camera.
There seems to be little interest in dynamic range and image quality in general, the (naive) argument often being that the modern denoising makes ISO 12800 images look like taken at ISO 100. This just shows how shallow is the understanding and how low are the expectaions of some people.
Then there are a good number of photographers who are obsessed with ever smaller and lighter camera systems. These are easily fatigued by even an average FF camera, and should find the GFX an abomination.
I have a FF camera (Sony A1), two micro-four-thirds (OM-1 II and G9II), and more recently, since December 2025, the GFX100S II. A camera is an instrument, and I have reasonably successfully used all of my cameras. Having said that, the GFX100S II is now the camera I use all the time. The ergonomics of the body is near perfect to me (I won't mind a deeper grip however). The opportunity to save six custom sets is a dream come true, and I like the uncluttered body style with the relatively small number of buttons. I know this is different from what most FF photographers should like.
Ultimately, I feel that my GFX100S II is an outstanding camera, and the GF lenses make it a top choice of a system for anyone who cares about image quality above everything else. The enlarged 4 x 3 format vs. 3 x 2 is an added bonus of the system.
- - -
There are excellent photographers producing excellent photography with every brand and format. I would argue that this is a golden age of photographic technologies.
mabra wrote:
This discussion reminds me of the old Windows-vs-Mac debate—one that, at least in my view, we have fortunately moved past. Let everyone simply work with the tools they are happy with and find easiest to use! In photography today, we simply have a vast array of options—many of them truly excellent. By comparison, the photographers we often look up to today typically had to go to far greater lengths back in their time to produce their wonderful images.
Today, we have the choice of various sensor sizes, and even smartphones now capture surprisingly good images. Some artists—Paul Graham, for instance—deliberately work...Show more →
Jun 01, 2026 at 09:03 AM
p.3 #9GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5. But I want to transition all of my lenses to be WR, meaning I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose (my only WR lenses for Fuji right now are the 16f1.4 and 90f2, but as I matured as a photographer I increasingly gravitate towards zooms).
However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII. I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture so I am not bothered if the autofocus performance is less than flawless.
Also in consideration is a Nikon Z7 with 14-24S, 24-120S, and 100-400S. But it bothers me that they refuse to release a Z7III (I don't want a Z8), the screen is not as good for vertical tripod work, and I am kind of itching to get back into Fujifilm. I've never worked with Nikon raw files but the Fuji files always seem to be pretty close to what I want straight out of the camera. I despise post processing so that is a big plus for me. Of course the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X.
I know the GF glass is supposed to be stunning, so is it crazy to be considering switching to GFX and not planning to use any GF lenses?I wonder what you are doing with your photographs that would require the resolution of the miniMF sensor… and sacrifice some of the pluses of teh lenses available in smaller formats?
If you are regularly making high-end prints for exhibit and sale in galleries in the 30” x 40” range and larger, then the larger formats can have some real value, subject to how and what you photograph. If you are not doing that, the value of the larger format — and what you have to give up to get there — is quite debatable. In all honesty, if you are working carefully — for example, you do the tripod and remote release thing in your landscape work, you are careful about precise focus and aperture selection, and you are skillful at post processing — you can make a top-rate 30” x 45” print from any of the current high MP FF systems… and you’ll have access to their wider range of lenses.
If you have landscape photography “heroes,” you might take a look at what htey use. I think you’ll find that the great majority are shooting full frame systems these days, including many who cut their teeth on large format film photography.
As to your XT5 thoughts, you can reliably produce excellent quality 20” x 30” prints with that system and sometimes larger if you use the same levels of care.
The GFX system certainly has its pluses for the right kind of photographer and photography, but that is a fairly small slice of photographers.For the thousandth time, there are other variables than resolution. Rendering, DOF and lots of other things can easily be seen at fairly small sizes. Yes, even on a computer screen.
BTW, this is a good example of where better DR would make a difference. The old 50 mpix sensor is great, but there are better.
And no, I'm not interested in awards.
To understand my response, read the OP’s reply. Then understand why even those “other things” that you go on about may seem irrelevant to his needs.
- - -
If you need to eke out every bit of the dynamic range to get a great picture, than you really need to work on your exposure technique in the first place.
The reviews showing recovery in extreme cases is just that, a technical readout, not a real life scenario. Who messes up that much, that often?
By the way, the Fujifilm sensor format is not medium format. It’s not even large enough to match 645 film, which is the smallest medium format film.
Even Fujifilm calls it “Larger than full frame”.(Few want to think about the fact that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF…
As for what the call the format, virtually every manufacturer has engaged in confusing or misleading nomenclature. The first offender was Pentax, who named their cameras using the 33x44mm sensors the “645” system. Those numbers are utterly meaningless in this context and, in fact, misleading....Show more →
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
Makten wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
js47 wrote
I used to shoot an X-T3, until I got a Panasonic G9 to use the PL100-400 lens and got addicted to in body image stabilization. I also tried the Sony A7R4 in the meantime and loved the freedom afforded by its megapixels, but the post-shoot workflow with Fuji is just so much better than either Sony or Pana. I still have the X-T3 and about 10 X-mount lenses, but I nearly always reach for the G9 due to its ergonomics, weather sealed lenses, and image stabilization - even if the end results aren't quite as good.I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5. But I want to transition all of my lenses to be WR, meaning I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose (my only WR lenses for Fuji right now are the 16f1.4 and 90f2, but as I matured as a photographer I increasingly gravitate towards zooms).
However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII. I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture so I am not bothered if the autofocus performance is less than flawless.
Also in consideration is a Nikon Z7 with 14-24S, 24-120S, and 100-400S. But it bothers me that they refuse to release a Z7III (I don't want a Z8), the screen is not as good for vertical tripod work, and I am kind of itching to get back into Fujifilm. I've never worked with Nikon raw files but the Fuji files always seem to be pretty close to what I want straight out of the camera. I despise post processing so that is a big plus for me. Of course the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X.
I know the GF glass is supposed to be stunning, so is it crazy to be considering switching to GFX and not planning to use any GF lenses?
If you are regularly making high-end prints for exhibit and sale in galleries in the 30” x 40” range and larger, then the larger formats can have some real value, subject to how and what you photograph. If you are not doing that, the value of the larger format — and what you have to give up to get there — is quite debatable. In all honesty, if you are working carefully — for example, you do the tripod and remote release thing in your landscape work, you are careful about precise focus and aperture selection, and you are skillful at post processing — you can make a top-rate 30” x 45” print from any of the current high MP FF systems… and you’ll have access to their wider range of lenses.
If you have landscape photography “heroes,” you might take a look at what htey use. I think you’ll find that the great majority are shooting full frame systems these days, including many who cut their teeth on large format film photography.
As to your XT5 thoughts, you can reliably produce excellent quality 20” x 30” prints with that system and sometimes larger if you use the same levels of care.
The GFX system certainly has its pluses for the right kind of photographer and photography, but that is a fairly small slice of photographers.
BTW, this is a good example of where better DR would make a difference. The old 50 mpix sensor is great, but there are better.
And no, I'm not interested in awards.
- - -
Lifeinpictures wrote
I use both Sony 35mm sensor cameras and Fujifilm “larger than 35mm” sensor cameras. Sensor technology have gotten so good that it really doesn’t matter.If you need to eke out every bit of the dynamic range to get a great picture, than you really need to work on your exposure technique in the first place.
The reviews showing recovery in extreme cases is just that, a technical readout, not a real life scenario. Who messes up that much, that often?
By the way, the Fujifilm sensor format is not medium format. It’s not even large enough to match 645 film, which is the smallest medium format film.
Even Fujifilm calls it “Larger than full frame”.
As for what the call the format, virtually every manufacturer has engaged in confusing or misleading nomenclature. The first offender was Pentax, who named their cameras using the 33x44mm sensors the “645” system. Those numbers are utterly meaningless in this context and, in fact, misleading....Show more →
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
Jun 01, 2026 at 11:27 AM
p.3 #10GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Another thread off the tracks. What a shame…seemed like a good topic.
Jun 01, 2026 at 11:50 AM
|
p.3 #11GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
SGinNorcal wrote:
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
See this.
Also:
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.
See this.
Also:
Jun 01, 2026 at 02:32 PM
p.3 #12GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
See this.
Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
Convert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
SGinNorcal wrote
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
Convert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
Jun 01, 2026 at 02:51 PM
p.3 #13GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
With the 100S you can save (and name) six focal lengths in the Adapter settings. This will allow the IBIS work with your adapted lens. So for adapting lenses the 100S is great but you change systems for the native glass (which is excellent). The 100S will serve you for years so adapting lenses is fun and can bridge while you save for some GF lenses.
Jun 01, 2026 at 03:49 PM
p.3 #14GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
SGinNorcal wrote:
See this.
Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpgConvert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out...Show more →
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
SGinNorcal wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
Jun 01, 2026 at 11:58 PM
p.3 #15GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Well ff is bigger than aps-c and gx is bigger than ff. What the actual differences will be depends on the actual sensors, processors etc. Names for sensor size are mere semantics .
Even my old aps-c! 16mpx Nikon at base iso was better than a Provia 100 slide taken on an M6 with a Summicron at detail, bigger is better but the differences are not in the same league as between 24x36mm, 6x7.5cms and 5x4in.
Gerry
Even my old aps-c! 16mpx Nikon at base iso was better than a Provia 100 slide taken on an M6 with a Summicron at detail, bigger is better but the differences are not in the same league as between 24x36mm, 6x7.5cms and 5x4in.
Gerry
Jun 02, 2026 at 01:05 AM
p.3 #16GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
See this.
Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpgConvert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
In no way do your links to your own pages shows this statement to be true - "Few want to think about the fact that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" - all I see is that you have been on some sort of strange campaign to diminish Gfx since it was launched. I really don't care if you don't want to use it, or even point out other good options. But I don't understand why you dispute physical geometry and mathematics and repeat something untrue hoping others believe it because you made a couple tables.
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
In no way do your links to your own pages shows this statement to be true - "Few want to think about the fact that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" - all I see is that you have been on some sort of strange campaign to diminish Gfx since it was launched. I really don't care if you don't want to use it, or even point out other good options. But I don't understand why you dispute physical geometry and mathematics and repeat something untrue hoping others believe it because you made a couple tables.
Jun 02, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.3 #17GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
One really begins to wonder what exactly is being argued about here—and to what end. Is there a definitive "right" and "wrong" in this context? Is there truly a need to convince others of the "correct" path, or to save them from doing the "wrong" thing? Isn't it all quite harmless if someone—like me, for instance—simply happens to be enjoying the experience of shooting with a camera featuring a (relatively) large sensor?
We all surely recognize that, nowadays, one can achieve excellent results with a wide variety of cameras. Wouldn't it be a relief, then, if this constant proselytizing would finally cease? Please, just let us keep shooting with GFX until we’ve had our fill. Yes, perhaps the day will come when I return to shooting primarily with FF or APS-C; but until then, I simply want to do what I personally deem best for myself. After all, I don't go around trying to convince others that shooting with APS-C is nonsense—that they would be better off switching to GFX. How absurd would that be? So, let's please put an end to this nonsense so that we can get back to exchanging ideas regarding the questions that are truly relevant and actually up for discussion here.
We all surely recognize that, nowadays, one can achieve excellent results with a wide variety of cameras. Wouldn't it be a relief, then, if this constant proselytizing would finally cease? Please, just let us keep shooting with GFX until we’ve had our fill. Yes, perhaps the day will come when I return to shooting primarily with FF or APS-C; but until then, I simply want to do what I personally deem best for myself. After all, I don't go around trying to convince others that shooting with APS-C is nonsense—that they would be better off switching to GFX. How absurd would that be? So, let's please put an end to this nonsense so that we can get back to exchanging ideas regarding the questions that are truly relevant and actually up for discussion here.
Jun 02, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.3 #18GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
mabra wrote:
So, let's please put an end to this nonsense so that we can get back to exchanging ideas regarding the questions that are truly relevant and actually up for discussion here.
Ok, I'm done and I'm sorry for aiding in the derail of a perfectly good thread.
I completely agree with your comments here. I currently enjoy APSC and Gfx for what they are good at. Maybe at some point, I'll circle back to 35mm. For me, the characteristic of Gfx I like the most is the sense of space and long transitions from the object in focus to completely out. Makten's photo is a great example.
So, let's please put an end to this nonsense so that we can get back to exchanging ideas regarding the questions that are truly relevant and actually up for discussion here.
Ok, I'm done and I'm sorry for aiding in the derail of a perfectly good thread.
I completely agree with your comments here. I currently enjoy APSC and Gfx for what they are good at. Maybe at some point, I'll circle back to 35mm. For me, the characteristic of Gfx I like the most is the sense of space and long transitions from the object in focus to completely out. Makten's photo is a great example.
Jun 02, 2026 at 10:05 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #19GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
chez wrote:
Another thread off the tracks. What a shame…seemed like a good topic.
It was never on the tracks. 3 people tried to contribute to the actual question, and the rest devolved into posting their favorite native lenses and getting really uppity about the idea of buying a GFX to simply adapt glass. It's why the Fuji sub is one of the worst on this site.
It would be a net positive for the forum if those members would engage in a moment of self reflection as to how to better serve others with their time here.
Another thread off the tracks. What a shame…seemed like a good topic.
It was never on the tracks. 3 people tried to contribute to the actual question, and the rest devolved into posting their favorite native lenses and getting really uppity about the idea of buying a GFX to simply adapt glass. It's why the Fuji sub is one of the worst on this site.
It would be a net positive for the forum if those members would engage in a moment of self reflection as to how to better serve others with their time here.
Jun 02, 2026 at 10:14 AM
p.3 #20GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
Given you make same statement again and again. I will beat the dead horse one more time here.
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice the signal light capture. This is not only for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 190k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
See this.
Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpgConvert it to graphics or percentages all you want or even post it to your blog, its still wrong. To compare the size of a two dimensional objects, you use the calculated area. The term "difference" is subtraction in mathematics and using math, 1441-862=579 sq.mm (gfx to full frame) which is greater than 862-368=494 sq. mm (full frame to APSC). Spelled out, the difference between Gfx and FF is greater than the difference between FF and APSC. Feel free to DM me if you want to dispute the math and not further derail the thread. I only pointed it out because it was incorrect information as it was.
Edited on Jun 02, 2026 at 10:38 AM · View previous versions
For anything with format ratio 4X3 such as 11,67,810. The area increase is 90%. That is almost double the sensor area. There is nothing magic about FF sensor size or 3X2 format. With larger sensor, you always have a lot more freedom to do thing you like.
The benefit is as simple as twice the signal light capture. This is not only for the case use all the resolution but also for anything downsampling used, less moire, less false color, sharper final image, less banding with very high DR scene, and better tonality, And you can crop…
Your argument make zero sense. A car with 400 horsepower is in another league to car with 200 ones and you might need to pay triple the price. FUji is a bargain for anyone want above advantages.
Don’t tell me your annual salary from 100k to 190k is less than 50k to 100k raise a few years back.
I just can’t stand experience or opinion based ignorance keep make center piece of the same topic over and over again.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Anyone who wants to see the actual data can visit the link I provided and compare for themselves.
The meaningful difference when it comes to sensor size comparisons the one expressed by crop factors.
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
I definitely don't want "to think that the difference between FF and the GFX format is half as large as the difference between APS-C and FF" for the simple reason is that it is not true. I've pointed this out to you and you still say it. Especially rich in this post accusing manufacturers of misleading information. I guess we are in a post-math world these days, just make it up.Also: http://gdanmitchell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FormatIllustration-2.jpg
Edited on Jun 02, 2026 at 10:38 AM · View previous versions
Jun 02, 2026 at 10:35 AM