Greg7579 wrote:
Dan, I do fine at F4 with the GFX 100 II and the wonderful GF 20-35 inside over 200 churches in the Med hand held at ISO 800 to 1600 at 1/15 second. How? 8 to 9 stops of IBIS. If you guys don't believe it, I have proof. Just glance through any one of my my Flickr albums the past 5 or 6 years.
So yes, the idea was to stay small w the RF so they blew off stabilization. Bad move in my opinion. My opinion is so strongly held that I'm not buying the camera, which will shock Fuji into some R&D.
With stabilization, that is certainly possible. I recently shared some handheld photographs on FM that I made inside churches in Nürnberg using a camera with IBIS and some fairly long exposures.
I think I wrote that there could be differences of opinion about the f/4 aperture, though it has certainly been raised as an issue by a lot of people, particularly in conjunction with the lack of IBIS. And while the smaller apertures work pretty will (again, in conjunction with IBIS) for subjects like these, I feel that f/2.8 would have been useful for people doing things like street photography, which seems to be one of the targets of the camera.
All aspects of camera design involve trade-offs and end up having both pluses and minuses. Here the question is how those pluses and minuses line up with the needs of the target market.
- - -
jjcha wrote:
I can imagine the reasons for not doing an OVF, but I'm in the tiny minority that really wanted one. I'm not selling my M10-P and remain hopeful for a X-Pro 5 with 65:24 aspect ratio functionality. If this comes out, with an OVF for 18mm framelines and a rear LCD that lets me zone focus without opening the damn camera or raising it to my eye, my currently pre-ordered GFX100RF will almost assuredly go up for sale. .
Your acknowledgement that you are “in the tiny minority that really wanted one“ is in line with my point that today the interest in the OVF has radically diminished for the reasons I mentioned in my post.
I still believe that the hopes for a next-generation XPro that shares the hybrid viewfinder design with the previous models are unlikely to be satisfied. (I’ve written elsewhere about why I feel pretty strongly about this, so I won’t recount it all again here.) If there is something in the lineage of the XPro (and I’m not so sure there will be) then I think it is more likely something that I think of as a “Super X-E” with the rangefinder-style body, EVF-only, and full manual controls.
Greg7579 wrote:
Dan, I do fine at F4 with the GFX 100 II and the wonderful GF 20-35 inside over 200 churches in the Med hand held at ISO 800 to 1600 at 1/15 second. How? 8 to 9 stops of IBIS. If you guys don't believe it, I have proof. Just glance through any one of my my Flickr albums the past 5 or 6 years.
So yes, the idea was to stay small w the RF so they blew off stabilization. Bad move in my opinion. My opinion is so strongly held that I'm not buying the camera, which will shock Fuji into some R&D.
With stabilization, that is certainly possible. I recently shared some handheld photographs on FM that I made inside churches in Nürnberg using a camera with IBIS and some fairly long exposures.
I think I wrote that there could be differences of opinion about the f/4 aperture, though it has certainly been raised as an issue by a lot of people, particularly in conjunction with the lack of IBIS. And while the smaller apertures work pretty will (again, in conjunction with IBIS) for subjects like these, I feel that f/2.8 would have been useful for people doing things like street photography, which seems to be one of the targets of the camera.
All aspects of camera design involve trade-offs and end up having both pluses and minuses. Here the question is how those pluses and minuses line up with the needs of the target market.
- - -
jjcha wrote:
I can imagine the reasons for not doing an OVF, but I'm in the tiny minority that really wanted one. I'm not selling my M10-P and remain hopeful for a X-Pro 5 with 65:24 aspect ratio functionality. If this comes out, with an OVF for 18mm framelines and a rear LCD that lets me zone focus without opening the damn camera or raising it to my eye, my currently pre-ordered GFX100RF will almost assuredly go up for sale. .
Your acknowledgement that you are “in the tiny minority that really wanted one“ is in line with my point that today the interest in the OVF has radically diminished for the reasons I mentioned in my post.
I still believe that the hopes for a next-generation XPro that shares the hybrid viewfinder design with the previous models are unlikely to be satisfied. (I’ve written elsewhere about why I feel pretty strongly about this, so I won’t recount it all again here.) If there is something in the lineage of the XPro (and I’m not so sure there will be) then I think it is more likely something that I think of as a “Super X-E” with the rangefinder-style body, EVF-only, and full manual controls.
Greg7579 wrote:
Dan, I do fine at F4 with the GFX 100 II and the wonderful GF 20-35 inside over 200 churches in the Med hand held at ISO 800 to 1600 at 1/15 second. How? 8 to 9 stops of IBIS. If you guys don't believe it, I have proof. Just glance through any one of my my Flickr albums the past 5 or 6 years.
So yes, the idea was to stay small w the RF so they blew off stabilization. Bad move in my opinion. My opinion is so strongly held that I'm not buying the camera, which will shock Fuji into some R&D.
With stabilization, that is certainly possible. I recently shared some handheld photographs on FM that I made inside churches in Nürnberg using a camera with IBIS and some fairly long exposures.
I think I wrote that there could be differences of opinion about the f/4 aperture, though it has certainly been raised as an issue by a lot of people, particularly in conjunction with the lack of IBIS. And while the smaller apertures work pretty will (again, in conjunction with IBIS) for subjects like these, I feel that f/2.8 would have been useful for people doing things like street photography, which seems to be one of the targets of the camera.
All aspects of camera design involve trade-offs and end up having both pluses and minuses. Here the question is how those pluses and minuses line up with the needs of the target market.
Greg7579 wrote:
Dan, I do fine at F4 with the GFX 100 II and the wonderful GF 20-35 inside over 200 churches in the Med hand held at ISO 800 to 1600 at 1/15 second. How? 8 to 9 stops of IBIS. If you guys don't believe it, I have proof. Just glance through any one of my my Flickr albums the past 5 or 6 years.
So yes, the idea was to stay small w the RF so they blew off stabilization. Bad move in my opinion. My opinion is so strongly held that I'm not buying the camera, which will shock Fuji into some R&D.
With stabilization, that is certainly possible. I recently shared some handheld photographs on FM that I made inside churches in Nürnberg using a camera with IBIS and some fairly long exposures.
I think I wrote that there could be differences of opinion about the f/4 aperture, though it has certainly been raised as an issue by a lot of people, particularly in conjunction with the lack of IBIS.
Apr 02, 2025 at 03:11 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16786895 « Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread »
