p.16 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
I keep wanting to bow out of this IBIS discussion because I get accused of repeating myself. Honestly, there is little if anything I can learn from any of you about IBIS or IBIS in combination with OIS
After years of using cameras with no stabilization, stabilized lenses, and IBIS…
In virtually all cases IBIS is a plus with no significant minuses. (You can always turn it off.)
While many of us can sometimes get pretty sharp handheld images at pretty low shutter speeds when we are very careful, not all photographs get to be made with that kind of care, especially when things happen quickly and/or the light is very low. IBIS offers significantly improved stability — and a higher success irate — even when shooting at those shutter speeds that might work sometimes with no stabilization.
Whatever your lowest acceptable shutter speeds is with no stabilization, it becomes lower with IBIS (or OIS with long lenses). When shooting street I try not to go lower than 1/30 second (CORRECTED TYPO: I originally typed “30 seconds.”) with a non-stabilized moderate wide lens. I’m usually OK at that speed, but I still get some shots that have a bit too much motion blur. With IBIS I can easily push that down to 1/4 second or so with the same careful shooting.
You certainly can do photography without stabilized gear — we did it that way for decades. But stabilization has improved things a lot. It is a really useful addition to cameras and is becoming virtually a standard feature of most modern cameras.
No, it can’t help with subject motion, so if you are only subject motion limited, it is still about keeping the exposure short in most cases. But most of also photograph subjects where that isn’t an issue and/or may be open to a bit of subject motion if it works for the image.
On another subject that your post seems to have raised, I’m surprised — though I probably shouldn’t be — at the number of people who disagree and then go on to basically tell you to shut up and go away… rather than attempting to engage your points with objective facts.
p.16 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Greg, I think a fair analysis would be that you have "spoken your piece" on IBIS
A few observations:
1) It's not your job to "educate" others on how to use their cameras, or to assume their abilities to capture images up to their standards.
2) No one cares about DPR here. Please stop talking about the mods and DPR in general.
3) The camera is called the GFX100RF, or RF, and certainly not the GFX Q4. This is a dumb look in general, not all that different than weirdos that insist on saying "Drumpf" as pseudo-intellectual gotcha.
I'm not so sure about that education part after reading some of these posts. I feel a duty to my fellow photographers. .
This is a discussion Fuji camera equipment discussion forum, and this thread is about the new Fuji fixed lens GF camera. I think my comments are right on point and I'm sorry if you don't agree with them or they trigger you.
Not my intent.
And since you are not a Mod, it is not your job to police the forum like I notice that you trend to do at times Scott. No offense and no big deal.
And nicknames? I've been giving Fuji gear nicknames for many years. I like the name GFX Q4.
That's what I'll be calling it unless I'm breaking a forum rule, in which case I'll stop.
p.16 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
After years of using cameras with no stabilization, stabilized lenses, and IBIS…
In virtually all cases IBIS is a plus with no significant minuses. (You can always turn it off.)
While many of us can sometimes get pretty sharp handheld images at pretty low shutter speeds when we are very careful, not all photographs get to be made with that kind of care, especially when things happen quickly and/or the light is very low. IBIS offers significantly improved stability — and a higher success irate — even when shooting at those shutter speeds that might work sometimes with no stabilization.
Whatever your lowest acceptable shutter speeds is with no stabilization, it becomes lower with IBIS (or OIS with long lenses). When shooting street I try not to go lower than 30 seconds with a non-stabilized moderate wide lens. I’m usually OK at that speed, but I still get some shots that have a bit too much motion blur. With IBIS I can easily push that down to 1/4 seconds or so with the same careful shooting.
You certainly can do photography without stabilized gear — we did it that way for decades. But stabilization has improved things a lot. It is a really useful addition to cameras and is becoming virtually a standard feature of most modern cameras.
No, it can’t help with subject motion, so if you are only subject motion limited, it is still about keeping the exposure short in most cases. But most of also photograph subjects where that isn’t an issue and/or may be open to a bit of subject motion if it works for the image.
On another subject that your post seems to have raised, I’m surprised — though I probably shouldn’t be — at the number of people who disagree and then go on to basically tell you to shut up and go away… rather than attempting to engage your points with objective facts....Show more →
Given the nature of the camera being a high priced fixed lens body I wouldn't blame anyone for passing. Particularly if the focal length, aperture, lack of IBIS, features and even the price are objectionable. These types of cameras tend to be easy to pass on for most. I didn't expect to be interested myself and really wasn't tracking the release rumors.
p.16 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
After years of using cameras with no stabilization, stabilized lenses, and IBIS…
In virtually all cases IBIS is a plus with no significant minuses. (You can always turn it off.)
While many of us can sometimes get pretty sharp handheld images at pretty low shutter speeds when we are very careful, not all photographs get to be made with that kind of care, especially when things happen quickly and/or the light is very low. IBIS offers significantly improved stability — and a higher success irate — even when shooting at those shutter speeds that might work sometimes with no stabilization.
Whatever your lowest acceptable shutter speeds is with no stabilization, it becomes lower with IBIS (or OIS with long lenses). When shooting street I try not to go lower than 30 seconds with a non-stabilized moderate wide lens. I’m usually OK at that speed, but I still get some shots that have a bit too much motion blur. With IBIS I can easily push that down to 1/4 seconds or so with the same careful shooting.
You certainly can do photography without stabilized gear — we did it that way for decades. But stabilization has improved things a lot. It is a really useful addition to cameras and is becoming virtually a standard feature of most modern cameras.
No, it can’t help with subject motion, so if you are only subject motion limited, it is still about keeping the exposure short in most cases. But most of also photograph subjects where that isn’t an issue and/or may be open to a bit of subject motion if it works for the image.
On another subject that your post seems to have raised, I’m surprised — though I probably shouldn’t be — at the number of people who disagree and then go on to basically tell you to shut up and go away… rather than attempting to engage your points with objective facts....Show more →
Short reminder to all of us. Low resolution allows for longer shutter speeds. 100Mpix can be pretty brutal at low shutter speeds and low might be faster than you think. An easy, occasional fix, if like me you don’t want to carry a tripod, or monopod ,is to toss a clamp in your bag.
p.16 #5 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
They way you need to use the supplied ring to use the hood gives me pause to think how nice a 2x would screw on to get a 56mm and use all 100 MP would be.
p.16 #6 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Well if you aren't sure about the education part, making up names for a camera might confuse people.
I hope we don't have 20 people make up 20 different names for each model.
I think I will call it the Fuji NIBIS. (I'm not....that's a joke.)
Greg7579 wrote:
I'm not so sure about that education part after reading some of these posts. I feel a duty to my fellow photographers. .
This is a discussion Fuji camera equipment discussion forum, and this thread is about the new Fuji fixed lens GF camera. I think my comments are right on point and I'm sorry if you don't agree with them or they trigger you.
Not my intent.
And since you are not a Mod, it is not your job to police the forum like I notice that you trend to do at times Scott. No offense and no big deal.
And nicknames? I've been giving Fuji gear nicknames for many years. I like the name GFX Q4.
That's what I'll be calling it unless I'm breaking a forum rule, in which case I'll stop.
p.16 #7 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
fotografur wrote:
They way you need to use the supplied ring to use the hood gives me pause to think how nice a 2x would screw on to get a 56mm and use all 100 MP would be.
I wonder if they'll do the extended DR again like they did on the non stabilized 50mp models before they brought IBIS to the GFX?
p.16 #11 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Vistek posted the briefest corners from a test chart. They did not look particularly impressive considering you will need to use the lens wide open a lot. Certainly better than what’s on the X100, and certainly not as good as a chunky GFX prime or even the 50/3.5.
After downloading and playing with a dozen RAW files today, I have soured quite a bit on this lens.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Seems everyone invited to Prague was barred from talking IQ the lens delivers. Gordon doesn't say word and doesn't show center or corner sharpness:
p.16 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Greg7579 wrote:
Rusty this is not to you but in general here on these GFX Q4 threads.
I keep wanting to bow out of this IBIS discussion because I get accused of repeating myself. Honestly, there is little if anything I can learn from any of you about IBIS or IBIS in combination with OIS in GFX shooting for my work. I already know everything I need to know about it and some of you are so far off base here that I think you are actually deluding yourselves.
But there might be something you can learn from me, because I shot the 50 s and r for a long time before IBIS came to GFX, and I know how to struggle and get by without it (monopod, or higher ISO than you really want or wider apertures than you might really want). Been there. Done that. Repeatedly and for far too long. (Remember, each stop of ISO up the ladder costs you something you might not want to pay, and wider apertures with GFX give very shallow DOF - much less than you are used to coming from APSC or FF).
Now in 2025? I take stabilization as a given and I have experimented with IBIS and IBIS + OIS since the day the first GFX 100 hit the street and 14 GF lenses....
But I keep reading these IBIS / OIS observations that are just not accurate or nowhere near the full story with GFX or Hassy MF cameras.
IBIS is not just about tripod avoidance. It provides much more stability and cleaner crisp viewing at full res with no pixels blurred because of vibration or shake in a wide variety of situations when you would otherwise lose that res and crispness for sure - especially small details at full res - the thing GFX and Hassy are famous for with this sensor (which is why I spend the money).
IBIS is great even at normal shooting speeds way past 1/125 depending on the focal length and situation. If I'm shooting the 100-200 at 200 or the 250 you better bet that you would need 1/5x speed (maybe even faster and wide open) if you were foolish enough to turn off the OIS switch. And these supposed speed limits for needing IBIS with the normal 35-70 range I keep reading here on these threads are wrong and I hope new GFX shooters are not learning from them.
And it also depends on what you mean by long exposure. I can get absolute tripod-like stability at one-third second handheld at 20-28mm with the 20-35 in darker situations at F4 and ISO around 1000 or so (maybe 1600). That would be absolutely impossible without stabilization by a factor of 5.
I can get shots handheld that are absolutely clean and brilliant stability-wise at speeds and apertures that were literally an impossible dream prior to GFX IBIS. Getting IBIS literally revolutionized (and saved) MF digital photography and Fuji went 5 years backwards by leaving it (or OIS) off the GFX Q4.
If that absolute truth irritates some of you, so be it. Maybe it will sink in someday when you learn what I learned 5 years ago and have experienced every day since.
That doesn't mean you should not buy the camera or that you have to have IBIS. I shot for decades without it. And yes, there are ways to work around not having stability while shooting GFX. But there are shots you will not get handheld without it, and it will help immensely even in normal daylight shooting at base ISO.
I shouldn't have to be giving these lectures in 2025, especially since you are hard pressed to buy a camera in 2025 without stabilization (unless you buy the GFX Q4). 😁
OK - I repeated myself on some of that so forgive me. But so do you guys! And I bet somebody argues with these absolute facts I just laid out again, which means I will be back with another repetition of the reality which should help the Great Unwashed Masses out there that will be shooting GFX for the first time with the GFX Q4. . I'm kidding.... Sort of. ...Show more →
Greg, I understand that value of IBIS, etc. I have bodies With IBIS and Without IBIS and with OIS and Without OIS. Also With AF and Without AF. I won't let the lack of IBIS (or the lack of AF) keep me from shooting with a non-IBIS (or non-AF) body. But, that's me ... YMMV.
I guess my real point is that sometimes we let unimportant things keep us from the important things. IBIS is nice, but does a person allow the lack of IBIS refrain them from the rest of the goodies that are in the package. Judgment call and preference.
Would I let the lack of cup holders keep me from getting the car I want ... I mean, in today's world, you'd think they'd all have a 100 cupholders in them, but some cars don't seem to have lots of places to put my Big Gulp.
Choices ... we all make em. Sometimes it takes a moment to step back an understand the significance of their relationships to what is / isn't meaningful to us.
p.16 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
Vistek posted the briefest corners from a test chart. They did not look particularly impressive considering you will need to use the lens wide open a lot. Certainly better than what’s on the X100, and certainly not as good as a chunky GFX prime or even the 50/3.5.
After downloading and playing with a dozen RAW files today, I have soured quite a bit on this lens.
None of the many sample pictures I have seen look like much. How could Fuji make a camera body predicated on image quality and give it an inferior lens that can't be changed?
The thought I have is that Fujifilm has two categories of employees designing their cameras: geniuses and idiots.
p.16 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
chiron wrote:
None of the many sample pictures I have seen look like much. How could Fuji make a camera body predicated on image quality and give it an inferior lens that can't be changed?
The thought I have is that Fujifilm has two categories of employees designing their cameras: geniuses and idiots.
The irony (if my "internet" AI info is correct) is that Fuji made lenses for Hasselblad, including the 45/4 P and the 28/4 P, as well as the 38/2.5 V. You'd think that in the mix of all that, they'd knock the 35/4 P out of the park. But, this info came from AI ... so, I'd put it at 2% reliable.
But, Fuji does have a history of making good lenses ... so, the early take is that this is a bit disappointing, unless these "pre-production" models that the reviewers got are going to be revised for production, etc. Maybe, Fuji already was working on some things, so they kept "mums" about it, pending the final product.
Yeah, okay ... well, one can dream, right.
Oddly enough, it was the lens on the X100 that didn't impress me ... even after Fuji "improved" that lens. I'm starting to think this is a bit deja vu. We'll see.
p.16 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Are the XCD lenses not made by Nittoh? I thought Fuji only made the H lenses.
RustyBug wrote:
The irony (if my "internet" AI info is correct) is that Fuji made lenses for Hasselblad, including the 45/4 P and the 28/4 P, as well as the 38/2.5 V. You'd think that in the mix of all that, they'd knock the 35/4 P out of the park. But, this info came from AI ... so, I'd put it at 2% reliable.
But, Fuji does have a history of making good lenses ... so, the early take is that this is a bit disappointing, unless these "pre-production" models that the reviewers got are going to be revised for production, etc. Maybe, Fuji already was working on some things, so they kept "mums" about it, pending the final product.
Yeah, okay ... well, one can dream, right.
Oddly enough, it was the lens on the X100 that didn't impress me ... even after Fuji "improved" that lens. I'm starting to think this is a bit deja vu. We'll see....Show more →
p.16 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
If you slide the distortion slider to 125, the horizon gets pretty close to straight. But then there is a further hit on the lower corners in terms of resolving ability.
RoamingScott wrote:
Here is a GIF I made of the uncorrected raw versus checking the profile correction option in Lightroom.
p.16 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I so rarely shoot 28 mm equivalent, would the horizon normally be straight that high in the frame?
tsdevine wrote:
If you slide the distortion slider to 125, the horizon gets pretty close to level. But then there is a further hit on the lower corners in terms of resolving ability.
