p.12 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
A half hour discussion with Justin Stailey on the design philosophy of the RF, so you nerds can stop arguing about which part of a webpage to read first.
….
3) Size is paramount as the first step for all compact Fuji cameras, extra features like IBIS will come later after developing appropriately small tech
.
This makes perfect sense. The marketing decision was to run with what they had rather than wait for perfection. How many versions of X100 passed before we had stabilization? I think that other aspects of all manufacturers medium format cameras that might be important as they attract full frame shooters is superior auto focus. I think that Hasselblad will soon make iterative improvements, but the real improvement will probably come with the next generation of sensors and peripheral chips.
This new camera is more the size of my old Bronica RF645 (even smaller), but so much more capable. The Bronica was attractive in the film era for much the same reason that the Fuji RF is attractive now.
p.12 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
A half hour discussion with Justin Stailey on the design philosophy of the RF, so you nerds can stop arguing about which part of a webpage to read first.
1) The X100 was the main design influence (duh) "It's an X100 on steroids", weird, where did I hear this before
2) People want a 50Rii badly, and Fuji wanted to surprise and impress those people with something even smaller with more physical controls
3) Size is paramount as the first step for all compact Fuji cameras, extra features like IBIS will come later after developing appropriately small tech
4) Target market is photography enthusiasts, not pros (subtext: Leicatypes)
5) Justin is a man of culture who prefers 35mm to 28mm, and 28mm was picked because it's more in the "sweet spot" in terms of handholding without IBIS
6) The resolution of the camera is not meant to have every image taken at 102mp...it's to provide the creative freedom to play with aspects and crops in the field and know you're getting a good quality photo regardless
7) Fuji cameras are made by image makers for image makers, they are always trying to balance "market standards" and unique features to bring joy and engagement to image making
Chris went on to mention that the digital teleconverter rocker is WAY too easy to hit without knowing and if you aren't using frame lines to denote the crop and instead viewing the current zoom full screen, it's nearly impossible to tell what level of digital zoom you're at (similar to the X100 in that the status icon is tiny)....Show more →
This makes a lot of sense when I look at the features. Professionals will go with a system camera. This is aimed at cashed up enthusiasts and provides a bunch of features for those enthusiasts to play with. While it is not intended to be a one camera solution to everything, the fixed focal length is somewhat compensated for by the 102 mp sensor that allows for plenty of cropping. Even cropping to 24mp is plenty of resolution for most cases.
IBIS is missing so that they can sell V2 with IBIS to the same enthusiasts, with a 'we heard you' marketing campaign. Fuji seems to have limited production capacity to they are pushing up the value chain to sell fewer higher priced products than cameras for the masses. Built in Japan so likely coming out of the old X100 facility.
While I think it is an attractive and interesting camera, it is nearly $A 9000 in Australia. It is not a camera that is intended to be a value proposition versus other cameras in the market, but a rather value proposition for those who want the specific features it has - medium format sensor, portability, aspect ratio dial and crop lever.
For me the big miss was going f4, instead of f2.8. An smallish F2.8 pancake design might be more feasible at a 45/50mm focal length and maybe that will be the next iteration.
p.12 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Honestly, this is the first digital camera in 10 years that actually piques my interest. If I ever go back to shooting a lot of digital it will be with something like this.
p.12 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chiron wrote:
For your application, why not an A7CR with its AI AF and 7 stops of IBIS used with a smallish Sony 25-50 f2.8 G lens or the small and light Sony 40mm f2.5 G lens?
688 grams for the Sony body and 40mm/2.5 G
915 grams for the Sony body and zoom lens
735 grams for the GFX100RF with a 35mm/4.0
772 grams for the Leica Q3 43
743 for the Leica Q3
At A7CR the deal breaker are the 1m dot articulaing screen and bokeh killer EFCS or too slow 1/15s sensor readout speed in e shutter. And it’s barely different shooting experienve than far better A7RV. I’d get the 40 2.5 for A7RV instead.
p.12 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The technology exists for IBIS and OIS on this camera but Fuji close not to use it because of size issues on this fixed lens cameras. Tripod? I have four RRS tripods with several RRS heads of all types, plus a RRS monopod that I use a lot. But when traveling, one is not allowed to bring tripods in churches and palaces and museums and hiking with one is not always an option. Walking for miles in the streets with a tripod is also cumbersome (but I do it sometimes).
As far as using tripods go, I always travel with one and always have on in the car. I use a tripod or monopod whenever I can. When I can't, I want IBIS or OIS. Pretty simple for me really. Maybe I misunderstand you. ...Show more →
Ok so it's a non problem then. You got tripods, you got gear and all.
What you are asking for is not there yet now, that's it. No offense but I think you should not spend too much time and energy on this.
p.12 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
vineyard wrote:
Literally the first sentence on Fujis website for the 100RF is:
“Large format photography has never been so portable. The compact, lightweight design of GFX100RF means its detail-rich 102-megapixel resolution can always be close at hand.”
Not sure where you get the idea they don’t get to the sensor “until nearly the end”.
That said, I somewhat agree that the aspect ratio dial likely was a central part of the design for Fujis engineers. However, it doesn’t seem to have much of a practical advantage over simply configuring a button to the aspect ratio menu on a normal GFX. It seems a bit far fetched that people will now All of a sudden constantly change ratios. Maybe you do, but many won’t, even with the wheel. ...Show more →
You are right, but I was referring to the feature segments which is why I said “as you scroll down.” At any rate, as @RoamingScott@ shared in the Petapixel interview with Justin Stailey, they are marketing it that way.
I get what you are saying about configuring a button being just as functional. I think most will agree dials make sense for exposure triangle settings because: a) exposure is a critical aspect of photography; and b) we change exposure often. Aspect ratios are just as critical as an element of composition but clearly won’t be changing as much as exposure. But for me, probably enough to make me appreciate having the dial. If nothing else, it makes that decision more front and center as I pick up the camera, which is what I think Fuji intended with this design.
p.12 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I don’t see the contradiction in Fuji’s statements about IBIS. The camera is compelling without IBIS. Would it be better if it had IBiS? Yes, at the expense of design trades they didn’t find appropriate at this time. It’s clear they’ve thought about it and have ideas for how to include it in the future.
p.12 #10 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Erich6_ wrote:
Well, I can see where you are coming from. If you look at the camera as primarily a small version of your high IQ 100mp GFX then it makes sense why you see the aspect ratio dial as superfluous.
However, if you come to it like me, I will use the dial to make the camera behave like one of several cameras Fuji has made in the past. It will behave differently based on the aspect ratio I select, and my interaction with it and the scene I will photograph will be different depending on the dial setting. I’m elevating the photographic experience as more important than a post workflow and, while I have no preconceived notions on the output being a “GFX output,’ it will be excellent image quality better than any of the film predecessors. The bonus: the RAW file will have the whole frame and I can crop to whatever aspect ratio I want just as in your workflow should I choose to do so.
This is why the part of the Prague summit event that most resonated with me was the story when Josef Koudelka said using the 6x17 format rekindled his photography: “Many photographers stopped to photograph. But I did not stop to photograph, because I started to use panoramic camera.”
I have a feeling that approaching the camera the way I described is likely to yield much satisfaction. Approaching it as you suggest likely will lead to disappointment (and it appears you already are disappointed!)
P.S. Take a look at the Fuji product page for the GFX100RF. As you scroll down, you will see they refer to it as a rangefinder, then a small camera, then the aspect ratio. They don’t get to the fixed lens design or 100mp sensor until nearly the end. What is Fuji saying is the point of this camera? ...Show more →
I get what you are saying but let me give you some advice on shooting with GFX (or any camera with a sensor). Most of us go to the trouble and expense of shooting GFX because of the amazing resolution / image fidelity / IQ and often because of the unique 4:3 native aspect ratio of that sensor. Don't throw that resolution away unless you really have to or specifically want to for that one shot. (In my opinion, that is best done in post processing, not by spinning a dial with 9 aspect ratios on it.)
Most GFX shooters like the sensor because of the native aspect ratio 4:3. If you don't like 4:3 then I would argue it is silly to shoot GFX.
So, look for ways to compose your shot and frame with 4:3. I'm not saying not to crop, which is what you are doing when you pick one of these other "aspect ratios." That dial has 9 aspect ratios. I would not be fiddling with it too much if I were you. I think of that dial, and I just sort of chuckle.
You guys shoot however you want, but one of the beauties of a camera equipment discussion forum is you sometimes learn from other photographers, and I learn everyday reading them.
I will say this. If you look at my work, you will see I shoot a lot of very wide 20mm shots with the 20-35 (my favorite GFX lens). I shoot it and know in my mind that I will often be cropping the bottom of the frame (foreground at me feet) off to some degree for an XPan type of look at 20mm. But that is best done in post on a large high res monitor where I can see what is going on and make a decision about exactly where to crop. Like my old buddy (the Grumpy Old Dictator Jim Kasson) taught me many years ago, if you are going to crop, crop in one direction. If you crop in two directions, you probably made a bad decision on positioning or composition of the shot.
I think that dial with the 9 "aspect ratios" is going to cause some less experienced photographers to learn some bad habits.
It convinced me to stick with my Q's even though FF and not 44x33. f1/7 or f2.0 APO for my flexibility are better to have even though "only" 60MP.
Years ago many thought 24MP was great to have and I still believe it when using the SL3S. I still own a GFX Fuji, but most often prefer a 6 pixel pitch sensor.
p.12 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
bwcolor wrote:
You certainly don’t think that your opinion wasn’t fully investigated prior to the design being frozen. My experience, with my use shows me that I could go f/4.0 vs my XCDv lenses of f/2.5, but I would choose a full frame stabilized system over a non-stabilized 100Mpix. There must have been real engineering/marketing negatives (size/cost) to adding IBIS. What FF shooters should recognize is that 100MPix is way more resolution than you will need most of the time and the real plus here is the one camera and crop.. in this case crop in the viewfinder. No more dust on the sensor and likely fairly good weather sealing. Lots to love here, but don’t expect to use the 1/focal length to approximate lowest hand holdable shutter speed.
Regarding other posters mention of the leaf shutter. Give a low level of fill flash a try. I know with my X2D this can really make the images. I say low level because you don’t want your imaging screaming flash. I know that this runs counter to wanting a small size camera, but for some shoots it might be something to think about....Show more →
You are right. I know for a fact that Fuji agonized over this. They wanted to do it, but unless they delayed the project a long time and spent tons of money on new types (on the drawing boards) of either OIS or IBIS, they were going to have to go beyond what they wanted for ergo and size for the GFX Q4. I understand that. But that does not mean I will buy the camera now because not having stab ruins the whole small, fixed lens equation for me. Plus, that silly dial with the 9 fake crops "aspect ratios" on it just makes me shake my head in amazement.
But let me comment on your not needing 100MP for most shots. That is a very common refrain. I shoot GFX because I want that res built into my raw files. You never know when you will need it later as technology progresses. Plus, I like the look and feel of those 100MP files, so I do "need" it.
Let me give you an example. I shot Fuji X APSC for a long time along with FF and GFX. I look at some of my better shots now from 11 or 12 years ago with the XT-1 and I say to myself, "I wish I had that shot with GFX." They are nice, but there is a huge difference in image fidelity and look. That is no slight on Fuji X, which I really love. But they made GFX for a reason.
p.12 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
24MP is great to have, I use my 24mp camera way more than my 100mp one. The only time a 24mp shot might fail to impress is on a high res monitor...prints always look great.
That's the problem with chasing monitor specs, the only drug that gives you a hit is more megapixels, when only you are seeing the gains.
p.12 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
24MP is great to have, I use my 24mp camera way more than my 100mp one. The only time a 24mp shot might fail to impress is on a high res monitor...prints always look great.
That's the problem with chasing monitor specs, the only drug that gives you a hit is more megapixels, when only you are seeing the gains.
Scott, that is very true. You are absolutely correct. When I spent a lot of money about a year ago and got that pro 6K monitor, which was 4 grand at the time, I was in awe reviewing old GFX files that I had been viewing on 4K monitors for years.
But yes - I'm the only one seeing that.
But remember, monitor tech is getting better and cheaper. That is why I say it is not a bad idea to have those 100 MP for the future, plus the big files give you more leverage in post in order to export those smaller jpegs.
But yes, my drive is full of 24 MP (and less) Fuji X files that I love to look at.
p.12 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm posting info I'm finding that might be interesting and helpful, instead of being a pissy pedant. I didn't claim to agree with Fuji's claims, though I do have some understanding of the basics of how this sensor works without IBIS at various speeds. If you don't like the camera, move ALONG. Consider contributing something the group might find of value!
There's the typical Scott the whole board loves...
p.12 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
I get what you are saying but let me give you some advice on shooting with GFX (or any camera with a sensor). Most of us go to the trouble and expense of shooting GFX because of the amazing resolution / image fidelity / IQ and often because of the unique 4:3 native aspect ratio of that sensor. Don't throw that resolution away unless you really have to or specifically want to for that one shot. (In my opinion, that is best done in post processing, not by spinning a dial with 9 aspect ratios on it.)
Most GFX shooters like the sensor because of the native aspect ratio 4:3. If you don't like 4:3 then I would argue it is silly to shoot GFX.
So, look for ways to compose your shot and frame with 4:3. I'm not saying not to crop, which is what you are doing when you pick one of these other "aspect ratios." That dial has 9 aspect ratios. I would not be fiddling with it too much if I were you. I think of that dial, and I just sort of chuckle.
You guys shoot however you want, but one of the beauties of a camera equipment discussion forum is you sometimes learn from other photographers, and I learn everyday reading them.
I will say this. If you look at my work, you will see I shoot a lot of very wide 20mm shots with the 20-35 (my favorite GFX lens). I shoot it and know in my mind that I will often be cropping the bottom of the frame (foreground at me feet) off to some degree for an XPan type of look at 20mm. But that is best done in post on a large high res monitor where I can see what is going on and make a decision about exactly where to crop. Like my old buddy (the Grumpy Old Dictator Jim Kasson) taught me many years ago, if you are going to crop, crop in one direction. If you crop in two directions, you probably made a bad decision on positioning or composition of the shot.
I think that dial with the 9 "aspect ratios" is going to cause some less experienced photographers to learn some bad habits. ...Show more →
Thanks for the advice—always welcomed. And your old buddy’s crop tip makes sense.
Good thing is the aspect ratio dial conforms to your advice. The crop will always use at least one full dimension of the sensor (at 35mm). Seeing the crop in the viewfinder will help make sure the composition is right—you want that to minimize making a mistake and having to crop too much in post throwing away those precious pixels!
I don’t see how this leads to bad habits in light of your advice.
p.12 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
Scott, that is very true. You are absolutely correct. When I spent a lot of money about a year ago and got that pro 6K monitor, which was 4 grand at the time, I was in awe reviewing old GFX files that I had been viewing on 4K monitors for years.
But yes - I'm the only one seeing that.
But remember, monitor tech is getting better and cheaper. That is why I say it is not a bad idea to have those 100 MP for the future, plus the big files give you more leverage in post in order to export those smaller jpegs.
But yes, my drive is full of 24 MP (and less) Fuji X files that I love to look at.
Hey good to see you Greg! I know the aspect ratio dial has become somewhat of a polarizing feature here and elsewhere but I just don't see why. If you don't want to use the dial for in camera composing in different aspect ratios just leave it on 4:3. Others seem to like the idea of having it.
p.12 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
So the argument without IBIS is the leaf shutter removes the instability of a shutter curtain of the other GFX cameras. Looks like all the early reviews say camera shake isn’t an issue.
p.12 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
Scott, that is very true. You are absolutely correct. When I spent a lot of money about a year ago and got that pro 6K monitor, which was 4 grand at the time, I was in awe reviewing old GFX files that I had been viewing on 4K monitors for years.
But yes - I'm the only one seeing that.
But remember, monitor tech is getting better and cheaper. That is why I say it is not a bad idea to have those 100 MP for the future, plus the big files give you more leverage in post in order to export those smaller jpegs.
But yes, my drive is full of 24 MP (and less) Fuji X files that I love to look at.
I personally have received more joy thumbing through tiny 60 year old 4x6 photos of my family than any high res online gallery. The only version of future proofing I employ is trying to print as much as I reasonably can and making it easy to grab in case the house is burning down (and also backing them up online so I could reprint if needed).
I enjoy looking at my work in 5K, and know that almost no one else on this earth ever will.
This is probably why the digital teleconverter is very appealing to me...the options in the field with a fixed lens camera become greater than ever to capture something that will look great as an archival print...moments, places, feelings, and less futzting with gear.
