p.5 #1 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Let me try a revised lens list that captures some of what we have discussed.
I will start with primes. I think there are 4 major types:
New fast lenses including:
35 f/2 or f/1.7
180 f/2.5
That would give a set of five such lenses: 35 f/1.7 LM or f/2, 55 f/1.7, 80 f/1.7, 110 f/2, & 180 f/2.5 LM
New tilt/shift lenses including:
20 f/5.6
70 f/5.6
That would give a set of four such lenses with 20 f/5.6, 30 f/5.6, 70 f/5.6, and 110 f/5.6
New macro lenses including:
150 f/2.8 with 1:1 magnification
That would give a set of two such lenses 120 f/4 1:2 magnification and 150 f/2.8 1:1 magnification
New leaf shutter lenses including:
55 f/1.7 with LM
80 f/1.7 with LM
110 f/2 which already has a LM
That would make a set of three such lenses
For zoom lenses I can see 3 major types:
New slower zoom targeted for landscape shooters with a max focal length range of 2.5X:
15-32 f/5.6
32-80 f/4.5-5.6 (could come later as an update to the 35-70)
80-200 f/5.6 (could come later as an update to 100-200)
200-500 f/6.3-f/8
This would give a set with a long range of focal lengths covered
New faster lenses targeted for portraits and events with a max focal length range of 2.5X:
30-75 f/4 (this could come later as an update to the 32-64)
70-175 f/4
This would give a trinity of f/4 lenses of 20-35 f/4, 30-75 f/4, and 70-175 f/4
Even faster lenses (these could come later) targeted for portraits and events and competing with the likes of the Sony 28-70 f/2 and 50-150 f/2 with a max focal length range of 2X
35-70 f/2.8
70-140 f/2.8
This would be a set of 2 such lenses
Together these lenses move the typical focal length range from the current 2X to 2.5X, except for the fastest zooms which would maintain the 2X focal length range we see in most zoom lenses for GFX we see today.
p.5 #3 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
EDITED:
The long list is... interesting, but it isnt'likely to happen and even if it did it would be many years (maybe a decade) before all of that stuff happened.
For my photography, right now, if Fujifilm wants me as a customer the one (just one!) thing they need to produce is a longer telephoto zoom along the lines of a 100-400mm or 200-500mm. lens. Heck I'd even understand if they just did a 200-400 and at least made it TC compatible.
Until that happens, the system — as fascinating as it is — just won't work for me… nor, from what I hear, from a fair number of other photographers.
I wish it weren't so.
I think that the issue is the difference between lenses some would “like” to have and lenses some “need” to have. The former could be nice… but the latter are indispensable , and their absence is a deal-breaker.
p.5 #4 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
SGinNorcal wrote:
^^^^reading this makes me hope the "Steve Spencer" is a alias for a Fuji marketing team member who is putting together a new GF road map
, no thanks I will keep my day job which I like very much, but I am glad you appreciated the effort to try to pull together people's thoughts.
p.5 #5 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
The long list is... interesting, but it isnt'likely to happen and even if it did it would be many years (maybe a decade) before all of that stuff happened.
For my photography, right now, if Fujifilm wants me as a customer the one (just one!) thing they need to produce is a longer telephoto zoom along the lines of a 100-400mm or 200-500mm. lens. Heck I'd even understand if they just did a 200-400 and at least made it TC compatible.
Until that happens, the system — as fascinating as it is — just won't work for me. I wish it weren't so.
Yes, Dan I know with where you are, what you shoot, and how you shoot you want that long zoom. I don't think you will have to wait too long for it. Of the listed zoom lenses, my guess would be that it will be the second to be made, so I would think 2026 or 2027, but that is just a guess. My guess is that the first zoom lens that they will make will likely be something like the 70-175 f/4 geared more toward portrait shooters, but then they will likely return to a lens for landscape shooter something like a 200-500.
Also keep in mind that Hasselblad is coming out this week with a 35-100 for their X system, so perhaps they will think that their 45-100 is enough of a competitor to that, but perhaps the third zoom lens will either be a 35-100 or perhaps a 30-90 (Leica made a 30-90 f/3.5-5.6 for their S system). The Hassy lens and the Leica lens before it suggests that the 2X limit we discussed really isn't a limit at all and I might be a bit conservative here in only proposing a 2.5X focal length range as a maximum.
I think if the third zoom lens they made was a 35-100, then you could probably be quite happy with a 20-35, 35-100, 100-200, and 200-500 kit with zero gaps at all. I think there is a decent chance that would be available in 3 years.
p.5 #6 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
By the way, my own interest in the GFX system has changed as it has evolved. I originally was most interested in the system as a platform for adapting lenses. It has been my platform of choice for using some lenses that I find really unique (e.g., Leica R 80 f/1.4, Hasselblad CF 250 f/5.6 SAPO, Contax 645 120 f/4 APO macro). I already like the portrait primes and particularly the 55 f/1.7 and 110 f/2 enough that I will in time add a new camera and those lenses to my kit at some point (probably about 5 years away realistically, however). I also like the looks of the 20-35 enough that eventually I can see a set of three zoom lenses for landscape work. For me I would want these to double for my general shooting as well and be purchased in place of getting f/2.8 lenses for FF. So, I would want a trinity of f/4 zooms starting with the 20-35, then a mid-range zoom, then a medium telephoto zoom. I don't expect to get there for a decade, however.
p.5 #8 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
EDITED:
The long list is... interesting, but it isnt'likely to happen and even if it did it would be many years (maybe a decade) before all of that stuff happened.
For my photography, right now, if Fujifilm wants me as a customer the one (just one!) thing they need to produce is a longer telephoto zoom along the lines of a 100-400mm or 200-500mm. lens. Heck I'd even understand if they just did a 200-400 and at least made it TC compatible.
Until that happens, the system — as fascinating as it is — just won't work for me… nor, from what I hear, from a fair number of other photographers.
I wish it weren't so.
I think that the issue is the difference between lenses some would “like” to have and lenses some “need” to have. The former could be nice… but the latter are indispensable , and their absence is a deal-breaker....Show more →
Yes, we know you think that long zoom is indispensable for your photography and you aren't willing to do something like use a 100-400 EF lens and adapt it. There were a few other people who feel the same way on this thread. It was among the most common responses, but I suspect there are some portrait shooters who also feel that something like the 70-170 f/4 would be indispensable for their photography too. That is why I guess those or something like them will be the first two zooms made. The new Hassy X mount 35-100 f/2.8-4 might shake up Fuji's plans a bit too. So we will see how that shakes out. I honestly don't think it will take anywhere near a decade for you to get what you want, but of course none of us has a crystal ball (well at least one that actually tells the future, I do have a lovely crystal ball that just sits on the mantel looking pretty )
p.5 #9 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, we know you think that long zoom is indispensable for your photography and you aren't willing to do something like use a 100-400 EF lens and adapt it. There were a few other people who feel the same way on this thread. It was among the most common responses, but I suspect there are some portrait shooters who also feel that something like the 70-170 f/4 would be indispensable for their photography too. That is why I guess those or something like them will be the first two zooms made. The new Hassy X mount 35-100 f/2.8-4 might shake up Fuji's plans a bit too. So we will see how that shakes out. I honestly don't think it will take anywhere near a decade for you to get what you want, but of course none of us has a crystal ball (well at least one that actually tells the future, I do have a lovely crystal ball that just sits on the mantel looking pretty )...Show more →
Well now that they have added the GF 500 to the system I think there is some hope they will do a longer zoom. When they originally released the GFX they said they had targetted having a focal range roughly equalling a FF 70-200(100-200 + TC and 250). The release of the GF 500 has certianly expanded the range quite a bit so I would think that the prospect of a longer zoom seems more likely. Given their early statements I just don't think they were considering the longer focal range lenses early on.
p.5 #10 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, we know you think that long zoom is indispensable for your photography and you aren't willing to do something like use a 100-400 EF lens and adapt it. There were a few other people who feel the same way on this thread. It was among the most common responses,…
Indeed. At least near the start of the thread, the most common one.
(Also, to be a bit picky, I don’t “think that a long zoom is indispensable for my photography.” I know it is.)
rbf_ wrote:
Well now that they have added the GF 500 to the system I think there is some hope they will do a longer zoom. When they originally released the GFX they said they had targetted having a focal range roughly equalling a FF 70-200(100-200 + TC and 250). The release of the GF 500 has certianly expanded the range quite a bit so I would think that the prospect of a longer zoom seems more likely. Given their early statements I just don't think they were considering the longer focal range lenses early on.
I think you are right about Fujifilm’s thinking “early on.” My impression was that, with a few arguable exceptions, their mental model of the system was based on the old-school lenses for MF film. While I think that Fujifilm “got it” regarding the potential of a larger sensor system, I think they didn’t get it regarding lenses and, at least at first, rather than realizing hat the much smaller body size and smaller-than-film-MF sensor allowed them to rethink how they approached lenses.
As a person who once shot MF film and who has friends who still do (or at least did until very recently), I can say with some certainly that while they like the concept of the larger film format, they also very much missed the smaller size, greater flexibility, and wider range of lenses from 35mm/FF systems.
I think that Fujifilm may be at least starting to “get” this — a miniMF system doesn’t have to offer lenses that mimic the more limited options of larger film MF systems. Imagine a system with the potential IQ pluses of the somewhat larger sensor… with the real-world functional and flexible advantages of a lens system more like that of FF systems.
When talking about old-school 6cm film systems and even the smaller 645 system, the answer to the “why can’t I have the lens options I have on 35mm?” question was, logically, “with the much larger format, equivalent lenses would be huge, heavy, cumbersome, and super expensive.” (The angle-of-view-equivalent to a FF 400mm lens would be about 650mm on 645 and almost 1100mm on 6x7!.) But here miniMF presents a tremendous potential advantage, one that could let it compete more effectively with FF. For example, the focal length required to get the same “reach” as 40mm on FF is only about 508mm on miniMF.
The bottom line is that it makes a whole lot of sense to think of designing miniMF lenses that are close to being larger versions of FF lenses than to think of miniMF lenses as replicating the functionality of film MF systems. I keep hoping the Fujifilm will make more moves in that direction. (That 500mm lens was a start…)
p.5 #11 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. At least near the start of the thread, the most common one.
(Also, to be a bit picky, I don’t “think that a long zoom is indispensable for my photography.” I know it is.)
I think you are right about Fujifilm’s thinking “early on.” My impression was that, with a few arguable exceptions, their mental model of the system was based on the old-school lenses for MF film. While I think that Fujifilm “got it” regarding the potential of a larger sensor system, I think they didn’t get it regarding lenses and, at least at first, rather than realizing hat the much smaller body size and smaller-than-film-MF sensor allowed them to rethink how they approached lenses.
As a person who once shot MF film and who has friends who still do (or at least did until very recently), I can say with some certainly that while they like the concept of the larger film format, they also very much missed the smaller size, greater flexibility, and wider range of lenses from 35mm/FF systems.
I think that Fujifilm may be at least starting to “get” this — a miniMF system doesn’t have to offer lenses that mimic the more limited options of larger film MF systems. Imagine a system with the potential IQ pluses of the somewhat larger sensor… with the real-world functional and flexible advantages of a lens system more like that of FF systems.
When talking about old-school 6cm film systems and even the smaller 645 system, the answer to the “why can’t I have the lens options I have on 35mm?” question was, logically, “with the much larger format, equivalent lenses would be huge, heavy, cumbersome, and super expensive.” (The angle-of-view-equivalent to a FF 400mm lens would be about 650mm on 645 and almost 1100mm on 6x7!.) But here miniMF presents a tremendous potential advantage, one that could let it compete more effectively with FF. For example, the focal length required to get the same “reach” as 40mm on FF is only about 508mm on miniMF.
The bottom line is that it makes a whole lot of sense to think of designing miniMF lenses that are close to being larger versions of FF lenses than to think of miniMF lenses as replicating the functionality of film MF systems. I keep hoping the Fujifilm will make more moves in that direction. (That 500mm lens was a start…)...Show more →
I do think the GF 500 signals a shift. But I do think they have been reactive to customers feedback. Very early on they were releasing mostly primes and had said they expected to make mostly primes (they had the 32-64 at that point). But they noted they were getting overwhelming requests for zooms which were not really popular in the traditional MF systems so they decided to focus more on zooms and ended up delivering the 45-100, 100-200, 35-70 and 20-35. I don't thinkl all of those zooms were in their original plans. Given the history and past behavior I would expect a longer zoom with the GF 500 out.
p.5 #12 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. At least near the start of the thread, the most common one.
(Also, to be a bit picky, I don’t “think that a long zoom is indispensable for my photography.” I know it is.)
I think you are right about Fujifilm’s thinking “early on.” My impression was that, with a few arguable exceptions, their mental model of the system was based on the old-school lenses for MF film. While I think that Fujifilm “got it” regarding the potential of a larger sensor system, I think they didn’t get it regarding lenses and, at least at first, rather than realizing hat the much smaller body size and smaller-than-film-MF sensor allowed them to rethink how they approached lenses.
As a person who once shot MF film and who has friends who still do (or at least did until very recently), I can say with some certainly that while they like the concept of the larger film format, they also very much missed the smaller size, greater flexibility, and wider range of lenses from 35mm/FF systems.
I think that Fujifilm may be at least starting to “get” this — a miniMF system doesn’t have to offer lenses that mimic the more limited options of larger film MF systems. Imagine a system with the potential IQ pluses of the somewhat larger sensor… with the real-world functional and flexible advantages of a lens system more like that of FF systems.
When talking about old-school 6cm film systems and even the smaller 645 system, the answer to the “why can’t I have the lens options I have on 35mm?” question was, logically, “with the much larger format, equivalent lenses would be huge, heavy, cumbersome, and super expensive.” (The angle-of-view-equivalent to a FF 400mm lens would be about 650mm on 645 and almost 1100mm on 6x7!.) But here miniMF presents a tremendous potential advantage, one that could let it compete more effectively with FF. For example, the focal length required to get the same “reach” as 40mm on FF is only about 508mm on miniMF.
The bottom line is that it makes a whole lot of sense to think of designing miniMF lenses that are close to being larger versions of FF lenses than to think of miniMF lenses as replicating the functionality of film MF systems. I keep hoping the Fujifilm will make more moves in that direction. (That 500mm lens was a start…)...Show more →
I'm not familiar with what Canon has been doing with its FF lenses, but the Fuji GF lenses are significantly bigger than many of their Sony counterparts. This particularly adds up if wanting to carry multiple lenses. While I think carrying a Sony trinity of F4 zooms all day is doable, though not pleasant, carrying a Fuji GF trinity of even two zooms plus a fast prime would be beyond most mortals (though wedding photographers may be prepared to put up with the weight to get a paycheck).
As to what GF lenses I would like to see, a small f2.8 50mm that can focus down to around 30cm would get me excited.
p.5 #13 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Geoff D F wrote:
I'm not familiar with what Canon has been doing with its FF lenses, but the Fuji GF lenses are significantly bigger than many of their Sony counterparts. This particularly adds up if wanting to carry multiple lenses. While I think carrying a Sony trinity of F4 zooms all day is doable, though not pleasant, carrying a Fuji GF trinity of even two zooms plus a fast prime would be beyond most mortals (though wedding photographers may be prepared to put up with the weight to get a paycheck).
As to what GF lenses I would like to see, a small f2.8 50mm that can focus down to around 30cm would get me excited. ...Show more →
The Fuji GF mount is 19mm bigger than the Sony E mount. The diameter of the hole in the mount is 65mm. All Fuji GF lenses are going to have a big diameter of at least 70mm and realistically much bigger, whereas you regularly get Sony lenses with a 53mm diameter. That will make a difference in the size of the lenses.
That said the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is 88mm in diameter, 200mm long and weighs 1045g. That lens is longer and heavier than any of the Fuji GF zoom lenses, and for Sony shooters it is considered a part of almost everyone's trinity of GM lenses.
At this point I don't think there really are Fuji GF and Sony FF counterparts. Fuji just doesn't have a lens like that 70-200 f/2.8 GM II or really even close to it. Sony doesn't have a lens that is a counterpart to the Fuji GF 45-100 f/4 OIS. Perhaps we can compare the Fuji GF 20-35 f/4 to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM II. The Sony is 88mm in diameter, 112mm long and weighs 517g. The Fuji isn't that much bigger at 89mm in diameter, 113mm long and 725g, but it doesn't cover as wide of a focal length range. If size is your thing, however, I don't think you should be looking at the Fuji GFX system. The bigger sensor with the bigger mount is simply not going to be as small of a system. But it really is no different in comparing APS-C to FF 35mm. APS-C is going to get you a smaller kit, and m4/3rds will get you a smaller kit still and that will hold even with lenses that are equivalents (i.e., counterparts) and it will hold especially as lenses get longer. Often you don't get counterpart lens, however.
With bigger sensors come clear benefits (e.g., higher resolution, better base ISO dynamic range and color, better cropping capabilities), but there is no free lunch. Along with those benefits, however, you generally get the cost of a bigger system.
p.5 #14 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Geoff D F wrote:
I'm not familiar with what Canon has been doing with its FF lenses, but the Fuji GF lenses are significantly bigger than many of their Sony counterparts. This particularly adds up if wanting to carry multiple lenses. While I think carrying a Sony trinity of F4 zooms all day is doable, though not pleasant, carrying a Fuji GF trinity of even two zooms plus a fast prime would be beyond most mortals (though wedding photographers may be prepared to put up with the weight to get a paycheck).
You'd be surprised at what I'm willing to carry if it is necessary for my photography. ;-)
Typical base landscape kit is 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, pls 1.4x TC. Sometimes I can work with less, but when I take everything in the FF kit I also add a 100mm f/2.8 macro and an old Pentax 80-160mm MF zoom plus a Mirex T/S adapter. Oh, and a tripod. A really big tripod. I move very slowly... ;-)
Fortunately, from what I'm often told, miniMF lenses can have a one stop smaller maximum aperture and perform as well as FF counterparts. ;-)
p.5 #15 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
gdanmitchell wrote:
You'd be surprised at what I'm willing to carry if it is necessary for my photography. ;-)
Typical base landscape kit is 16-35mm f/4, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/4, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, pls 1.4x TC. Sometimes I can work with less, but when I take everything in the FF kit I also add a 100mm f/2.8 macro and an old Pentax 80-160mm MF zoom plus a Mirex T/S adapter. Oh, and a tripod. A really big tripod. I move very slowly... ;-)
Fortunately, from what I'm often told, miniMF lenses can have a one stop smaller maximum aperture and perform as well as FF counterparts. ;-)...Show more →
I was thinking more about what might be tolerable in a shoulder bag for travel than a backpack for landscape work. For landscape work my limited experience so far suggests the GFX system has much to commend it.
For depth of field I think the conversion factor is lightly less than one, so the f2 GFX lenses equate to f1.6 primes at the equivalent focal length. But for landscape work the slower GFX lenses should work equally well.
For lenses I own or used to own, the Fuji 20-35 f4 is significantly bigger than the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 and has less range, and the GFX 35-75 f4.5-5.6 is also a lot bigger than the Sony 28-60 f4-5.6. That's not to say any system is either superior or inferior.
There is always a balance between smaller formats and lighter systems versus bigger formats and heavier systems, which individuals will need to decide for themselves where the sweet spot is. For landscape work the GFX system is so far proving itself attractive to me. For travel, however, I think it is going to push me beyond what I'd be prepared to carry.
p.5 #16 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Geoff D F wrote:
I was thinking more about what might be tolerable in a shoulder bag for travel than a backpack for landscape work. For landscape work my limited experience so far suggests the GFX system has much to commend it.
For depth of field I think the conversion factor is lightly less than one, so the f2 GFX lenses equate to f1.6 primes at the equivalent focal length. But for landscape work the slower GFX lenses should work equally well.
For lenses I own or used to own, the Fuji 20-35 f4 is significantly bigger than the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 and has less range, and the GFX 35-75 f4.5-5.6 is also a lot bigger than the Sony 28-60 f4-5.6. That's not to say any system is either superior or inferior.
There is always a balance between smaller formats and lighter systems versus bigger formats and heavier systems, which individuals will need to decide for themselves where the sweet spot is. For landscape work the GFX system is so far proving itself attractive to me. For travel, however, I think it is going to push me beyond what I'd be prepared to carry....Show more →
I’m aware that the oft-quoted difference between DOF on miniMF and FF isn’t exactly 1 stop, though folks usually generalize it that way. (The DOF difference from a third of a stop of less is pretty inconsequential, so I think it’s a useful estimate.)
I agree with you that a larger format system has much to recommend for many types of landscape photography, especially for photographers who actually do make quite large prints. That’s precisely why I think Fujifilm should make an effort to offer the longer telephoto zoom lenses without necessarily shooting for large apertures.
As to travel photography, that’s such a diverse notion that it is hard to generalize. Some think of travel photography as any sort of photography done while traveling. Some think of it as photography done with gear that is suited to travel — e.g. smaller, lighter, and perhaps focused on various particular subjects such as people or street, etc. Others might think of it as commercial photography about the subject of travel.
My personal definition — for my own travel — is a bit of a combination: Photography done with smaller and sometimes more limited gear that fits with the practicalities of travel and which is focused on subjects related to why I travel. For me (and YMMV), this means avoiding larger systems and big lenses, and it also means almost exclusively shooting handheld.
In fact, I use completely different gear for that and most of my other photography, with the only cross-over being that I do have some larger lenses for my base travel system that I sometimes use for “ultra-lite” landscape work and as a backup to my larger landscape system.
In my opinion (YMMV), if an APS-C (or MFT) system doesn’ t meet your needs for travel, few would need or want to travel wiht something as large as the miniMF systems, especially if mostly shooting handheld — something like the very small Sony 60+ MP system gets extremely high quality images in a much smaller package.
p.5 #17 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
For me, X and Gfx len system almost completely overlap. Exceptions would be on the X, ultrawide and 80mm macro, don't have equivalents for Gfx. Yet. Using "travel" doesn't mean much to me, its about carrying it for how far and what terrain. I pretty much use Gfx whenever I am willing to carry it or be seen with a large camera.
p.5 #18 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
The difference between "travel" and other forms on photography for me is that travel typically involves being able to carry gear all day in a shoulder bag. I might take a camera backpack to a foreign destination, but I always unload a subset of gear to a shoulder bag to go out each day.
My other shooting can either be done from a car or backpack, which means weight and size of gear are less important. Before going mirrorless, I used a 5D, 17-40mm f4 L, 24-105mm f4 L and a consumer grade tele as my core travel setup. That was the limit of what i was prepared to carry when out and about. Unfortunately trying to replicate a similar set-up with GFX would be too heavy and bulky for me. So I will content myself with Fuji APS-c for travel, though I may add a GFX 100 RF eventually if prices fall.
p.5 #19 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
Geoff D F wrote:
My other shooting can either be done from a car or backpack, which means weight and size of gear are less important. Before going mirrorless, I used a 5D, 17-40mm f4 L, 24-105mm f4 L and a consumer grade tele as my core travel setup. That was the limit of what i was prepared to carry when out and about. Unfortunately trying to replicate a similar set-up with GFX would be too heavy and bulky for me. So I will content myself with Fuji APS-c for travel, though I may add a GFX 100 RF eventually if prices fall....Show more →
I do agree that for most of us — and for me for sure — traveling with an APS-C system makes a lot more sense than trying to carry around a big GFX system with lenses on travel where photography requiring such a system isn't the primary reason for the travel.
There was a time when I traveled with almost exactly the setup you described e above — a Canon 5D with the 24-105mm (though sometimes that was all I took) plus, as needed, the old 17-40mm f/4 and a 70-200mm f/4. That covered a to of ground, but I'm much happier now with a smaller XT5 system and, frankly, the image quality is at least as good.
Some (really!) old-school images shot with that system — Seattle, way back in 2007:
p.5 #20 · What Fuji GF lenses would you like to see?
I've traveled with the GFX100S II, 20-35, 35-70, and an adapted 70-200 f/4 L IS.....I guess it comes down to how sensitive an individual is to size and weight.
By my rough calculations, a GFX100S II, 20-35, 35-70 and 100-200 is a little over 200 grams heavier than a 5D (original), 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 L IS (picked this..maybe the original non IS is lighter). Sure, the 35-70 and 100-200 are a bit slower, but the large sensor has great high ISO performance.
But if you don't see the 44x33 format as being much better than the full frame offerings, not sure any argument can be made. The GFX100S II shares the same pixel density as my a7R V, it just has quite a bit more area for more pixels.
, no thanks I will keep my day job which I like very much, but I am glad you appreciated the effort to try to pull together people's thoughts.
)
