p.1 #1 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
I am particularly inclined to portraits, have plenty of cameras and lenses in both Z and F Nikon mount from 24 to 45 MP, don't feel the need for more res but I am curious to see MF quality on both portrait and landscape, wondering pros and cons of adding a body like the GFX 50S II where I could adapt both AF Nikon F lenses (thinking of 20mm f1.8, 58mm f1.4 to name two) and MF Contax Yashica lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.7, 85/1.4 and 100/2).
Wondering what is the AF like, if it has some kind of IA focus like eye and how slow it is compared to modern ML bodies or vs latest D-SLR incarnations like my Nikon D850 camera which is still a superb piece of gear with great AF and very eclectic.
Particularly interested in comments from those who own/owned both and comparisons with portrait and high dynamic range landscape.
p.1 #2 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
You don't buy a 50SII for any sort of eye AF, I barely use it in the 100II. I don't adapt much either, but I'm not going to sell you 2 grand lenses if you don't have the budget for it.
p.1 #4 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
I agree with the above.
Regarding your questions, my experience with the GFX100S II and GF lenses (20-35mm, 55mm, and 500mm) has been positive. I don't do formal and studio portraits, but I regularly take portraits (including environmental portraits) of my wife when traveling, as well as selfies, on timer. I came to rely on the eye AF and even have a preference for AF-C vs AF-S for portraits with eye AF. It basically works well in my experience on static and slow moving subjects with the GF lenses.
I am not interested in adapting non-GF lenses. This can be fun, I guess, but I would like to keep my GFX kit limited to essential glass only.
The sensors of GFX50S II and GFX100S II have differences other than the megapixel count. If you can afford the GFX100S II, I would suggest to go for this body. Don't be afraid of the 102MP sensor. My experience was that when I added the GFX100S II, I thought that the large MP count was going to be more of a trouble than useful. In practice, it turned out to be very useful, at least in my use for travel photography. If you want to experience larger-than-FF sensors, then it is better to try the GFX100 bodies. This experience is not limited to the larger sensor area or the megapixel count. When comparing to my other cameras (the micro-four-thirds OM-1 II and the full-frame Sony A1), there's something about the feel of the GFX100S II body in hand that I like, and developed a liking for the Fuji menu system that may appear odd at first. This is personal, of course. I cannot make any general claims. I don't shoot fast moving subjects - only travel and art photography. The experience of using the GFX system made me feel disinterested in FF systems. I still have the Sony A1 and several good FF lenses, but I no longer use them.
p.1 #5 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
I always been a passionate portrait person, not posed, at least not yet, I like the semi candid style and as such I don't need the fastest AF, I been doing something with MF lenses too but it's too hard to nail focus, I am happy with my cameras (Nikon FF both D-SLR and ML) and lenses, I have some really stunning glass but the aim at trying something different is always there.
I see GFX 50S II with kit lens at prices almost affordable now and there is where the itch comes back, I don't appreciate, understand and reply the above comments while I understand you need native glass to get the best out of a system, I went through some of it along my journey and besides two all of my lenses are native, if money was no issue and I would earn through photography I'd sure land on the GFX 100S II which I know having a more evolved AF module and not just that but this is not the case, if it was I would go for it and the 110mm and I am sure I'd be plenty happy.
I am eager to see some portraits shot with the GFX system and adapted lenses, just curious
p.1 #6 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
I followed that exact path - coming from full-frame, I bought the 50SII—initially with the GF35-70, which is perfect for landscape photography. However, for portraits, I subsequently bought the GF45 and GF50, along with a range of adapted Minolta Rokkor lenses. The Minoltas were fun to use, and the portraits shot at f/1.7 or f/2.0 looked beautiful, but manual focusing proved very stressful in certain situations. That’s why I eventually switched back to native GF glass and added the GF63, which is wonderful for portraits. However, the autofocus hunts quite noticeably with that lens on the 50SII, and the camera's face and eye detection are completely useless (even though single-point AF works very well)—which is why I ultimately upgraded to a used 100SII. That combination is truly a dream. I never would have sold the 50SII for landscape or architectural photography—and the 35-70 would have been perfectly adequate for that. But for portraits, having reliable eye AF on the 100SII is a dream; the workflow is so much more relaxed, and the hit rate is simply higher. I fully agree with the previous comments: native GF glass is just excellent. Plus, you can often find these lenses used for nearly half the price.
p.1 #9 · Fujifilm GFX 50S II - is it an upgrade coming from FF?
I have the 100S and the 100II. I kind of don't think the AF is that different between these two camera as long as you're not shooting anything revolving around action. The 100S is pretty good if you're on a tight budget. GiovanniAprea wrote:
So far it seems I better wait to be able to make the bigger jump to the GFX 100S II for the AF performance and eventually native glass.
I got tempted by a sub 4K GFX 50S II with the kit lens
