sojournerphoto
Mentor
When I posted this picture in Digital Black and White, Freakscene asked how I like the Fuji GFX 100S and how it autofocuses. I decided to start a thread to gather a few thoughts for any and all interested.
First, I should say that I really like the camera. It's sensibly sized and useable in the same was a full frame dslr or big mirrorless (Panasonic S1r feels slightly heavier for example). I'll make a few observations now and then I'll try to update this thread from time to time with other bits of info, like the different Fuji and some adapted lenses - although all the Fuji lenses I've tried have been superb.
Detail
It's pretty obvious that it's a detail monster, but this shot was just a handheld grab with the 110/2 wide open. The lens is superb, managing to be both very sharp from wide open, but rendering really nicely and naturally - smooth perhaps. Here's a 100% crop from the middle of the frame where I set the focus point. This has Lightroom default sharpening on import and sharpen for screen on export - hopefully you will see what I mean about a sharp but gentle render.
Files
I haven't shot any jpeg's but the raw files open up looking great in Lightroom. Colours are good, detail is excellent and there is a very natural feel to the image. This is part of what I like about high res digital. In terms of noise, I haven't shot beyond iso 6,400 but, to me, that's fine. It's pretty similar to the S1r at that iso, but with double the resolution so prints look better at equivalent size. OTOH, I shoot a load of film and so I'm possibly not the most critical when it comes to noise performance, but it seems a step on from the S1r and similar (which was already at or towards the 'top of the tree']. Possibly lower res sensors have lower noise at high iso, but matched with the lower resolution from bigger pixels.
I don't pull raw files around as much as some, so can't comment on that, but they seem to have very good 'integrity'. I use the 16 bit raw files when I can.
Ergonomics
It fits my hand well. It's a large body, but I have no problem with it. The 50/3.5 lens gives a reasonable set up, but other lenses are big and that changes the proposition. It balances well with them, including the 110/2, but it is big and not something I'd carry as an everyday walkaround, commute etc camera.
Controls are fine. All my lenses have aperture rings and I tend to use aperture priority and exposure compensation. It took me a couple of goes to work out the control paradigm, but it's simple enough when you're used to it. The menus are painful (as is S1r) but once it's set you can forget it.
Autofocus
Again, I'm not a power user and so I'm not attuned to the extremes of af performance, particularly not fast af. I do care about accuracy and the ability to choose the focus point though. In this regard, it's generally as fast or slightly faster than the S1r and, similarly, very accurate. I think it's a bit better in low light too. On the other hand, it's not perfect and sometimes hunts a bit or slows down. One of the front function buttons allows you to cycle through various performance boost modes (evf frame rate and resolution and af performance, including a low light af mode) which seems to help in practice. Fot me it's been more than adequate to date, but I;ve not tried tracking (5 modes plus custom) or eye af yet. I will at some point.
Manual focus and evf
One of my concerns before getting the GFX was the lower (3.69Mp) resolution of the viewfinder compared to the S1r. In practice, I've found it OK and using it in boost mode it works well for manual focus with adapted lenses. The implementation of zoom to focus is excellent and is the best way to manual focus - it's possible to either zoom fully into the focus point and fill the whole viewfinder or to have a double image with a small zoomed focus image on one or other side of the main framing image - a bit like a bigger implementation of the digital focus patch in the x-pro2 ovf. Overall, it's good enough to not get in the way and works well for manual focus.
Shutter and speed
I've not managed to properly assess shutter lag yet. However, it feels slow. I don't actually think it is, it's just a very soft shutter and uses efc a lot of the time, so you only hear the closing curtain and reset. This is something I'm quite sensitive to - film Ms are fast, as is the Nikon FM2n (the mirror is fast at least!). The S1r feels fast and then the M11 and GFX both feel quite 'soft', for want of a better word. As noted, I don't think there is actually much delay, but the sound is different and it gives a different perception. So far it's not bothered me beyond noticing it.
Other stuff
I like that it will shoot x-pan format (65:24) at around 50Mp and multiple other formats too. You can shoot in 35mm crop mode for a 60Mp file, as it has the same pixel density as an M11 or A7r4. You can shoot 3:2 using the full frame width or 4:5 and 1:1 too. I wouldn't use it to digitise film as the native macro lens doesn't go to 1:1 and has more field curvature than you'd want. I still think the S1r (or Leica SL2/3) with the Sigma 105 Art macro are about as good as you get without specialist kit and lenses.
The image above is from the 110/2 and the one below is from the 50/3.5. I'll do a bit more on lenses over time, but all the Fuji lenses seem pretty stellar
Happy to answer questions where I can
Mike
AAlfano
Well-known
Very good report. Thanks.
The GFX cameras are way out of my league, but I’m curious; what kind of computer do you need to handle the 100MP RAW files? What’s your workflow for editing those files?
The GFX cameras are way out of my league, but I’m curious; what kind of computer do you need to handle the 100MP RAW files? What’s your workflow for editing those files?
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I was fortunate and bought the GFX when it was half price, just before they announced the v2.
I use a fairly fast laptop - Dell XPS - and process in Lightroom. The laptop has a very good screen and I also have an external monitor. Occasionally, I use photoshop, don’t often need it, and I don’t use any filter packages.
Mono conversions I keep very simple - if I want to look like film then I shoot film - and I haven’t used any of the ‘AI’ resizing, denoising or sharpening stuff. A big part of this is that I want my prints to contain what was recorded by the film or sensor and not have made up information, but it also keeps the processing simple. I tend to let noise remain too, albeit I will use lightroom’s colour noise reduction and chromatic aberration removal tools.
Mike
Edited to add - the current laptop is much faster than the previous one, that is now 10 years old. Both run a lot of ram, two internal ssd’s and I keep files on an external SSD with back up to a NAS drive. No cloud storage.
trix4ever
Well-known
I have the S1r and a wonderful set of lenses to go with it. I have often looked at this Fuji and would love to hear your thoughts on the two cameras.
I've downloaded some raw files off the Fuji and I just can't see enough difference to justify the change, but obviously you own both and I'm keen to hear more about the benefits of the 100Mp Fuji.
Thanks, Mark
I've downloaded some raw files off the Fuji and I just can't see enough difference to justify the change, but obviously you own both and I'm keen to hear more about the benefits of the 100Mp Fuji.
Thanks, Mark
AAlfano
Well-known
Thanks for the reply. Glad to know modern laptops can handle such large RAW files. I had thought you would need a beast of a desktop to handle 100MP RAW files.
shawn
Mentor
I haven't tried the GFX100 but with the GFX 50R I felt like its shutter had some lag. Moving to the S1R felt considerably faster when shooting fast action shots.
35photo
Well-known
I've got the 50R its certainly not the camera I shoot for if I need speed... Its fast enough for what its designed to do which provide high quality images.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
A really good question. Perhaps to start by simply saying that I won’t be selling the S1r.
In my view, the S1r is one of the most underrated and undervalued cameras around at the moment. The market doesn’t like it because it doesn’t have phase detect af and the Internet… in practice, it delivers superb files and has a fantastic range of L mount and adapted glass available, together with an excellent end to use them. Plus, it’s designed in a way a photographer can use intuitively by and large. I think it’s one of the best, not just a good underrated camera. I don’t know what lenses you have, but there are so many really good optics there’s almost something for everyone.
So what does the Fuji bring to the table?
1. The files are again superb. It has between 1 and >2 additional stops of dynamic range at all iso settings. This isn’t always useful of course but gives smoothness and margin. This link compares some relevant bodies
Photons2photos
Is this a game changer - no, we’re good enough and have been for some time.
2. The 4:3 aspect ratio allows cropping to other shapes with less loss - in particular panoramic format.
3. The af of the Fuji is at least on a par with the S1r in my use - but the S1r is perfectly fast enough with the Sigma contemporary lenses. Both sometimes hunt though. I have no need of super fast tracking, and neither camera does that…
4. The sensor is, surprisingly to me, enough bigger that there’s a slightly different look, but it’s not 6x7!
5. I’ve done some more testing and the shutter is a bit slower than the Panasonic (one of the best mirrorless pre, perhaps, the recent speed kings). However, it’s much faster than the 50r. I think the perception of slowness is worse than the reality, due to the soft sound and the extended post exposure evf blackout compared to the S1r. However, if I was shooting something where I needed the speed it would be S1r. In terms of speed I’d put the bodies I’m familiar with in order as M-A, FM2, M11, S1r, GFX
Actual measured timings here
GFX 100s shutter lag
S1r shutter lag
6. Ergonomics - S1r has more useful, labelled buttons and controls so it wins. Both are complicated - digital does as digital is - but the S1r is easier to pick up. However, the Fuji is fine once you’ve spent a bit of time - unlike some horrors.
Overall, is it worth changing, probably not. I was fortunate in that I picked a low price point and, given what I wrote about the S1r above, I could see the value in the SL3 or, presumably, forthcoming S1r ii. They just don’t seem to offer enough more that I need, so something different for less.
Mike
shawn
Mentor
I completely agree that the S1R is unbelievably under rated and the best camera I have owned. Totally agree about available lenses too, Sigma's DG DN have all been very impressive.
Regarding DR for some shots the S1R can actually have more resolution and more DR than the Fuji using the high resolution multi-shot mode. In that mode it gains around 2 stops and has a little less than a stop more DR than the Fuji. Granted, the Fuji will give you more DR most of the time though.
Not sure I agree about 4:3 being better for cropping, esp for panoramic. You lose more resolution cropping 4:3 down than you do 3:2 since 3:2 is already a bit wider. The GFX50R is 51 megapixels in full resolution and shot at 65:24 the files are 25.1 megapixels. The S1R is 47 megapixels in full resolution and 25.8 megapixels in 65:24. It also offers 2:1 which at least the GFX50R didn't have. Of course the GFX100 has more resolution to start with so you end up with higher resolution files.
Regarding DR for some shots the S1R can actually have more resolution and more DR than the Fuji using the high resolution multi-shot mode. In that mode it gains around 2 stops and has a little less than a stop more DR than the Fuji. Granted, the Fuji will give you more DR most of the time though.
Not sure I agree about 4:3 being better for cropping, esp for panoramic. You lose more resolution cropping 4:3 down than you do 3:2 since 3:2 is already a bit wider. The GFX50R is 51 megapixels in full resolution and shot at 65:24 the files are 25.1 megapixels. The S1R is 47 megapixels in full resolution and 25.8 megapixels in 65:24. It also offers 2:1 which at least the GFX50R didn't have. Of course the GFX100 has more resolution to start with so you end up with higher resolution files.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
In
You’re also right about cropping to 65:24, it’s just that starting with 102Mp you still have almost 50 after the bigger crop. I was really thinking more about 4:5 and 1:1. The GFX100s does offer a 2:1 crop as well. It seems some way ahead of the 50.
As I said, I’m keeping the S1r.
Of course, you’re right that the S1r gains DR and resolution using multi shot mode, but the Fuji can do that too of course. The S1r killer feature here is that it combines the frames in camera to give the full colour raw file (Strictly 93.5Mp full colour, which is interpolated to 187Mp). The Fuji requires a separate app to do the combining. The in camera combination is brilliant if you want to use multishot for film scanning.
You’re also right about cropping to 65:24, it’s just that starting with 102Mp you still have almost 50 after the bigger crop. I was really thinking more about 4:5 and 1:1. The GFX100s does offer a 2:1 crop as well. It seems some way ahead of the 50.
As I said, I’m keeping the S1r.
shawn
Mentor
Didn't realize Fuji added multi-shot to the later cameras. That must be an impressive image. Multishot for film scanning does work well on the S1R.
Agreed that for more square formats the 4x3 has less resolution loss compared to the same on a 3:2 camera. The multiple aspect ratios are one of my favorite features of the GFX and S1R. On the GFX it can also mean that some adapted lens might work that can't in full 4:3. The tiny Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 worked well on my 50R in 1:1 mode and 65:24 mode. That was a fun walk around lens as shifting between those two ARs gave a totally different feel for the camera/lens.
For example, same camera/lens a couple of minutes apart...
Agreed that for more square formats the 4x3 has less resolution loss compared to the same on a 3:2 camera. The multiple aspect ratios are one of my favorite features of the GFX and S1R. On the GFX it can also mean that some adapted lens might work that can't in full 4:3. The tiny Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 worked well on my 50R in 1:1 mode and 65:24 mode. That was a fun walk around lens as shifting between those two ARs gave a totally different feel for the camera/lens.
For example, same camera/lens a couple of minutes apart...
trix4ever
Well-known
Hi, Thank you so much for your comprehensive answer.
You've really confirmed most of my thoughts. I am more and more leaning towards the L-mount, having the S1r for hi-res, S1 for low light, SL for my M-mount lenses outside of the range of my M240 viewfinder. In fact I've sold all my Nikon Z system due to dreadful quality control on the lenses spoiling the party.
My biggest problem with the big Fuji is the limited range of lenses and the difficulty of finding lenses to adapt. Almost anything works on my SL.
There is no alternative in the Fuji system to my 14-28 panny or 20/1.4 Sigma and no-one will ever take my tiny Sigma 24mm f3.5 away from me.
The other consideration is how often do I really print big and realistically the S1r fulfils my needs. For architectural and cityscape work I find the hi-res mode more than enough and with AI upscaling and noise reduction I probably have all I need in the S1r.
Thanks again.
shawn
Mentor
That Sigma 24mm f3.5 is a beautiful lens. In 65:24 it gives almost exactly the same fov as the xpan with the 45mm.
AAlfano
Well-known
Apologies for the thread drift, but I'm curious what Nikon Z lenses you encountered problems with. From what I had read, I thought the Z lenses made in Japan and Thailand are pretty good as far as QC is concerned, and the ones made in China less so. What sort of problems did you encounter?
trix4ever
Well-known
I tried 3 of the 35/1.8 lenses, all were so badly decentred that they were unusable for a postcard print. I then bought one of the 24/1.8 lenses and that one was blurry right down one side, I swapped it for another which was assembled properly and found it was not as sharp as my 24/1.8 F lens.
The strange thing my 24-70/2.8 was wonderful and my 14-30/4 was terrific between 16-24mm, but the corners never sharpened up below 16mm and performance dropped off over 24mm.
Odd that the primes were so bad, maybe we had a bad batch in Australia, who knows?
Having mentioned the Sigma lenses, when I was younger they were rubbish but in recent years their quality has been as good as anyone's. I love the 24/3.5, but the 20/1.4 dg dn is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, and I have used far too many...
The strange thing my 24-70/2.8 was wonderful and my 14-30/4 was terrific between 16-24mm, but the corners never sharpened up below 16mm and performance dropped off over 24mm.
Odd that the primes were so bad, maybe we had a bad batch in Australia, who knows?
Having mentioned the Sigma lenses, when I was younger they were rubbish but in recent years their quality has been as good as anyone's. I love the 24/3.5, but the 20/1.4 dg dn is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, and I have used far too many...
AAlfano
Well-known
Interesting. Of the Z lenses you mentioned, the 24–70 f/2.8 is made in Japan, the 14–30 f/4 is made in Thailand, and the 35 f/1.8 and 24 f/1.8 primes are made in China.
35photo
Well-known
I have the GFX 50R and the 63mm 2.8 I like the lens in generally... I felt the certain colors at times are not as true as I like for example reds in in certain lighting situations sku more magenta which I've found it hard to edit out until I profiled that lens and created a custom color profile did the colors look more neutral and more accurate to me. The B&W tones on this lens are really great can have a nice silvery tone in the darker tones at times... I've shot 1 other GFX lens the 30mm 3.5 I thought was really good! Colors and sharpness were excellent out of the box with that lens just using the existing Fujifilm color profiles and Astia is my go to color profile gives to colors I like with some tweaks looked great on the 30mm. The 30 is too wide for me and too big and heavy, I'm interested in the 45 and thinking about getting a used copy is more up my alley wish it was smaller.... Anyone have any thoughts on the 45? I've also considered the 50 as the OP has looks really nice, how is the color rendering on the 50? I think I'm spoiled as a Leica shooter
Love the Fuji GFX system overall the 50R is fun to use as I'm sure the 100s is.
Love the Fuji GFX system overall the 50R is fun to use as I'm sure the 100s is.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I have the GFX 50R and the 63mm 2.8 I like the lens in generally... I felt the certain colors at times are not as true as I like for example reds in in certain lighting situations sku more magenta which I've found it hard to edit out until I profiled that lens and created a custom color profile did the colors look more neutral and more accurate to me. The B&W tones on this lens are really great can have a nice silvery tone in the darker tones at times... I've shot 1 other GFX lens the 30mm 3.5 I thought was really good! Colors and sharpness were excellent out of the box with that lens just using the existing Fujifilm color profiles and Astia is my go to color profile gives to colors I like with some tweaks looked great on the 30mm. The 30 is too wide for me and too big and heavy, I'm interested in the 45 and thinking about getting a used copy is more up my alley wish it was smaller.... Anyone have any thoughts on the 45? I've also considered the 50 as the OP has looks really nice, how is the color rendering on the 50? I think I'm spoiled as a Leica shooter
This is a colour picture from the 50/3.5. No colour grading beyond white balance tweak.
I like the lens. It's compact, light and sharp. There is a bit of distortion that LR can fix if you want. I've not noticed any colour oddities so far. Here's a 100% crop from the picture, although the forum software will blow it up bigger if your screen has sufficient resolution.
The lack of fast lenses is interesting. At one level I'd really like a copy of the 55/1.7, but suspect the 50 is actually better as a walkaround lens most of the time.
sojournerphoto
Mentor
And really just a bit of fun, I was playing with adapters and tried my Series 1 LTM Voigtlander 15/4.5 on it. This profile corrected with LRs series 2 profile (yes it's in there!), which corrects the vignetting and a bit of distortion. Amazingly it covers the frame.
This wasn't really that focused, but it doesn't matter much at 15mm - 12mm equivalent... the dog taking advantage after friends stayed
Here's a crop from the edge (my wife's work bookshelf)
Mike
This wasn't really that focused, but it doesn't matter much at 15mm - 12mm equivalent... the dog taking advantage after friends stayed
Here's a crop from the edge (my wife's work bookshelf)
Mike
35photo
Well-known
No issues with Sharpness color seems pretty good I'm still leaning towards the 45 even though I like compact lenses like the 50... The lack of compact fast lenses is interesting.. Fuji seems to be building lenses to a certain price point sweet point... They could do better for sure at probably 2X-3X the cost.This is a colour picture from the 50/3.5. No colour grading beyond white balance tweak.
I like the lens. It's compact, light and sharp. There is a bit of distortion that LR can fix if you want. I've not noticed any colour oddities so far. Here's a 100% crop from the picture, although the forum software will blow it up bigger if your screen has sufficient resolution.
The lack of fast lenses is interesting. At one level I'd really like a copy of the 55/1.7, but suspect the 50 is actually better as a walkaround lens most of the time.
Last edited: