Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to raise in my initial post in this thread. A shortened version of my view was that while the GFX system is ideal for some users it did not seem to be to be a good fit for his use case, based on his own criteria.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 03:30 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to gently raise in my initial post in this thread. A shortened version of my view was that while the GFX system is ideal for some users it did not seem to be to be a good fit for his use case, based on his own criteria.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 03:29 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to gently raise in my initial post in this thread. A shortened version of my view was that while the GFX system is ideal for some users it did not seem to be to be a good fit for his use case, based on his own description.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 03:29 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to gently raise in my initial post in this thread. A shortened version of my view was that GFX is ideal for some users but that it did not seem to be to be a good fit for his use case, based on his own description.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 03:28 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to gently raise in my initial post in the thread. A shortened version of my view was that GFX is ideal for some users but that it did not seem to be to be a good fit for his use case, based on his own description.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 03:25 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
Re: GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses?
You are on to my initial questions about the suitability of the GFX system to this particular user’s (somewhat confusing) use case, questions I tried to gently raise in my initial post in the thread.
ruthenium wrote:
I re-read the opening post, to get a better understanding of the question posed there.
I don't think I fully understand this particular case.
Here is my reflection on several points:
1) "I'd like more resolution and IBIS which led me initially to considering the X-T5."
For a photographer who "nearly always reach for the G9" (a micro-four-thirds body) migrating to a 102MP GFX is a bold move. If this photographer "despises post processing", then my immediate concern is whether the OP is prepared to deal with the large files from the camera.
102MP gives "more resolution" with the native GF lenses, and allows liberal cropping, but this assumes both using the native glass and doing some minimal post-processing.
If one is a LR user, then acquiring enough storage for the mandatory catalogue to hoard the large GFX RAF raw files is another consideration.
2) "I am basically starting from scratch with any system I choose... However, it has come to my attention that getting set up with an X-T5, 8-16WR, 16-55WRII, and 70-300WR will cost very nearly as much as a GFX100S, Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII."
I don't understand the logic of starting from scratch with the GFX100 body and buying several Canon lenses.
This is like starting from scratch and purchasing a high-end Sony camera, and investing into a collection of Nikon lenses.
What should be the total cost of "Fringer adapter, EF16-35 LIII, EF24-70 LII and EF100-400 LII"?
3) "I mainly shoot landscape with some architecture"
Then, perhaps the smartest way to start with a GFX is to add the body with the GF20-35mm F4 lens.
This can be cropped to FF 35mm, and further to 50MM (nearly an APS-C crop from the FF crop) that should still give you 32MP in the crop.
Thus, this lens on a GFX100 body covers the full-frame range from 16mm to 50mm (when one is comfortable with the idea of cropping).
4) "the main drawback to GFX is the weight - 4300g vs 3400g for Nikon Z or only 2350g for Fuji X"
This suggests that the OP is considering carrying the entire lens kit and the camera when shooting - that sounds unusual to me; however, I can imagine that different photographers have different needs and interests.
Traveling with 3 - 4 kg of camera gear is not unreasonable; however, carrying all the lenses at once is rarely needed (from my personal point of view, of course).
Jun 05, 2026 at 01:08 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17050306 « GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses? »
