SGinNorcal wrote:
It will be interesting to see if Fuji wants to keep improving the video capabilities of the Gfx. Now with the Eterna, they could focus video on that camera and leave the Gfx to stills. If they want to continue to improve video that will mean more data processing needed (assuming they would be increasing sensor read-out speeds).
Frankly the most reasonable thing for Fuji would be to stop this Eterna non sense before they waste more money...
...but since they won't do it, the technological needs of fast focusing still sensors and of video sensors are very similar, not to say identical. So I am not sure there is value in removing video capabilities from still cameras.
InFocus2014 wrote:
Focus speed/accuracy varies so much between my GF lenses on my GFX100S II, it leads me to wonder how much their lag behind CaNiSo is related to the camera and how much is related to the lenses. Of course, I expected this shortfall when I bought into the GFX system, so I still shoot a little over half my shots on Sony FF, with little expectations of significant change on Fuji. I’m sure I will more than likely buy the GFX100S III when released, but my expectations are certainly tempered.
Agreed yes. My personal experience with the 100II in the studio with the 45-100mm f4 is excellent. Very high consistency of well focused eyes pupils. But the 55mm f1.7 is next to impossible to focus, clearly worse than my AF-D 35mm f2.0 on the D100 20+ years ago.
bernardl wrote:
Frankly the most reasonable thing for Fuji would be to stop this Eterna non sense before they waste more money...
...but since they won't do it, the technological needs of fast focusing still sensors and of video sensors are very similar, not to say identical. So I am not sure there is value in removing video capabilities from still cameras.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree, I think its likely they will try to improve video performance and end up with more processing power anyway.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Of course there are. If they want to improve AF, however, increasing the processing power is one of the things that they could do.
I don’t disagree with that, and I never suggested that Fujifilm could not do this.
I was responding to your assertion that “ here is no reason they have to use the same processing unit as their APS-C cameras.”
From a practical manufacturing perspective, cost control is likely the reason that they have used the same tech here in the GFX line.Repurposing their APS-C line components is likely one reason that the GFX bodies aren’t even more expensive, and Fujifilm has likely regarded that as a plus on balance.
SGinNorcal wrote:
It will be interesting to see if Fuji wants to keep improving the video capabilities of the Gfx. Now with the Eterna, they could focus video on that camera and leave the Gfx to stills. If they want to continue to improve video that will mean more data processing needed (assuming they would be increasing sensor read-out speeds).
Fuji can't improve sensor read-out speeds by themselves - they need a new Sony chip (extremely unlikely in the near future as there is no such thing around the corner).
Many videographers prefer manual focus for the genres that can be captured with the slow-readout GFX sensor (e.g., no soccer matches ...). Maybe the wedding videographers are the sweet spot for people who would care. Is that a large enough market, though? Is GFX sufficiently better than the FF options out there, and in what way?
I feel that Fuji are a bit in a corner and the GFX 100 III will likely be a combination of A. the next Sony sensor (once there is one) B. faster chip (= faster AF, unless the sensor is higher res and equalizes gains) C. incremental feature improvements.
I honestly don't know how to interpret their recent price increase with Hasselblad lowering prices on the X2D II. What is the market that Fuji thinks they want to capture?
bernardl wrote:
Agreed yes. My personal experience with the 100II in the studio with the 45-100mm f4 is excellent. Very high consistency of well focused eyes pupils. But the 55mm f1.7 is next to impossible to focus, clearly worse than my AF-D 35mm f2.0 on the D100 20+ years ago.
You sure your 55/1.7 is working properly? I use mine often and it does occasionally hunt and its not silent, but nothing close to "next to impossible to focus". Of course at min. focus distance, wide open, its tricky to manage the razor thin focal plane if you or subject are moving at all.
I use the 80 1.7 often for studio stuff and that thing is notorious for having AF issues. I shoot the system in "dumb mode," which basically means AF-S single point. No face or eye tracking or anything and it's pretty consistent that way. bernardl wrote:
Agreed yes. My personal experience with the 100II in the studio with the 45-100mm f4 is excellent. Very high consistency of well focused eyes pupils. But the 55mm f1.7 is next to impossible to focus, clearly worse than my AF-D 35mm f2.0 on the D100 20+ years ago.
1) if you’re going to post an off topic video, at least provide some context as to why you are posting it
2) people saying or insinuating that the X2D2 is a worthy replacement for a GFX 100ii are highly ignorant, given how many more features the GFX system provides
gdanmitchell wrote:
For those who may be new-ish here and are, uh, “ignorant” about the forum works… FM has feature to alert moderators if a post seems inappropriate.
Use the “REPORT” button found under every post.
That’s why FM has moderators. :-)
Don't take this too seriously...is just photography forum... nothing more than that
RoamingScott wrote:
FM does not have moderatorS, but we’ll just add that to the list of ignorances =)
I don’t mind a video like that being posted, but it needs some context if people are expected to click and watch something longer form.
So in a video you can see that autofocus in new Hasselblad is good and image quality is very good... I am not sure what is missing in Fuji camera. Here at least you have a point of view from great photographer.
Oct 17, 2025 at 04:42 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don’t disagree with that, and I never suggested that Fujifilm could not do this.
I was responding to your assertion that “ here is no reason they have to use the same processing unit as their APS-C cameras.”
From a practical manufacturing perspective, cost control is likely the reason that they have used the same tech here in the GFX line.Repurposing their APS-C line components is likely one reason that the GFX bodies aren’t even more expensive, and Fujifilm has likely regarded that as a plus on balance.
Come on Dan, What I said was there was no reason they have to use the same processing unit. All that means is they don't have to use the processing unit from APS-C cameras. They can use a more powerful one if they decide to do so. It is a figure of speech and clearly does not mean there is no reason to use the processing unit from the APS-C cameras. There is a reason to do so, as you say to save money, but my point was that I don't think for the 100 III that is a good strategy. They can and probably should use a more hefty processor.
Or they could do what Nikon has been doing very successfully, which is to design a processor fast enough for the most demanding body of a given generation and to then roll it out in lower end bodies in the following years.
Best of both worlds. It’s fair, economical and sustainable.
The ZR shipping this week uses the Expeed 7 introduced 4 years ago with the Z9. It’s fast enough and low wattage enough for the ZR to not overheat without a fan and to have better battery life than competition. It is also cheap enough to be included in the very affordable Z5II.
bernardl wrote:
Agreed yes. My personal experience with the 100II in the studio with the 45-100mm f4 is excellent. Very high consistency of well focused eyes pupils. But the 55mm f1.7 is next to impossible to focus, clearly worse than my AF-D 35mm f2.0 on the D100 20+ years ago.
That is interesting. About a month ago, I shot portrait session with my GFX100S II with GF55mm f1.7, mostly shot at f1.7 to f2.5. For the first part of the shoot, I even had a four-stop ND filter installed since I was using strobes outdoors. Out of about 250 frames shot, approximately 15 shots were not perfectly focused on the eye cornea. I also took a few shots with the GF 110mm f2 lens with similar results.
While my Sony A1 II would only have had a couple shots mis-focused with the 50mm f1.2 lens, in a similar setting, I was actually extremely pleased with the performance of the GF55mm lens in combination with the GFX100S II. I used AFC, Wide-Area or Zone and Eye Focus for all the shots. I posted a few of my session shots on this forum (GFX Image Thread page 73). I find the GF55 lens to be amazing.
InFocus2014 wrote:
That is interesting. About a month ago, I shot portrait session with my GFX100S II with GF55mm f1.7, mostly shot at f1.7 to f2.5. For the first part of the shoot, I even had a four-stop ND filter installed since I was using strobes outdoors. Out of about 250 frames shot, approximately 15 shots were not perfectly focused on the eye cornea. I also took a few shots with the GF 110mm f2 lens with similar results.
While my Sony A1 II would only have had a couple shots mis-focused with the 50mm f1.2 lens, in a similar setting, I was actually extremely pleased with the performance of the GF55mm lens in combination with the GFX100S II. I used AFC, Wide-Area or Zone and Eye Focus for all the shots. I posted a few of my session shots on this forum (GFX Image Thread page 73). I find the GF55 lens to be amazing....Show more →
Maybe I need to have mine checked, because we have very different experiences.
bernardl wrote:
Agreed yes. My personal experience with the 100II in the studio with the 45-100mm f4 is excellent. Very high consistency of well focused eyes pupils. But the 55mm f1.7 is next to impossible to focus, clearly worse than my AF-D 35mm f2.0 on the D100 20+ years ago.
Here's another data point for you then: my focus experience with the 55mm f/1.7 on the 100 II is substantially better than yours in that the pupil focus is a decent step up from say the 5D2 + 50 f/1.2 or Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art back in the day. To be clear, it's not competitive with my R5 II in any way but it is adequate for stationary subjects, and the IQ is superb which for me makes it worth persisting.
But my 45-100 f/4 on the other hand...everything I have read or seen from you and others suggests I should be getting better AF performance than I actually am. Eye tracking with it is bafflingly inconsistent for me whether in bright light with high contrast, morning/afternoon side lighting, overcast, front or back lit...it is not an AF motor speed issue I think because it gets where it is going, except where it is going is often wrong. My 32-64 (also f/4 of course) is much more consistent, and my 110 and 250 are much better.
InFocus2014 wrote:
That is interesting. About a month ago, I shot portrait session with my GFX100S II with GF55mm f1.7, mostly shot at f1.7 to f2.5. For the first part of the shoot, I even had a four-stop ND filter installed since I was using strobes outdoors. Out of about 250 frames shot, approximately 15 shots were not perfectly focused on the eye cornea. I also took a few shots with the GF 110mm f2 lens with similar results.
While my Sony A1 II would only have had a couple shots mis-focused with the 50mm f1.2 lens, in a similar setting, I was actually extremely pleased with the performance of the GF55mm lens in combination with the GFX100S II. I used AFC, Wide-Area or Zone and Eye Focus for all the shots. I posted a few of my session shots on this forum (GFX Image Thread page 73). I find the GF55 lens to be amazing....Show more →
I use AF-C, zone and eye focus, 14 bit continuous low (for the lower shutter lag) with the 100 II and 55mm f/1.7 and sadly am not getting anywhere near a 90+% pupil hit rate. I have experimented with or without AF boost engaged and haven't been able to see a measurable difference, though I've generally left it on now on the thinking that it might be helpful in some way. Would be great to know whether you've found AF boost helpful, or not.
With a fairly stationary subject, best case I'd say I'm currently at roughly 75% accuracy for pupils from f/1.7-f/2.2 (being strict here and counting eyelash, edge of eyeball or other semi-usable near misses as misses). This drops off to slightly better than 50:50 in more challenging lighting. I also see a much greater drop off with approaching subjects than lateral movement within the frame, I suspect this is a Fuji AF algorithm issue compounded by the slow focus motors, because my 110 and 250 sometimes seem to get sent to the wrong place although in some sequences they happily keep up.
