Ich kann mir dein schönes Fotobuch leider nicht kaufen, weil es mir viel zu teuer und nur in englisch geschrieben ist! Sehr schöne Landschaften wo ich im Leben selbst nie hinkommen werde.
You know the Fuji GFX series is amazing and they deserve some serious credit, however I just don't see the cropped medium sensor as enough of a size jump to really benefit over what full frame can do. The Nikon Z7 II, Sony A7R IV and even Nikon Z9 are maybe better buys for certain audiences. I've used DX, FX and medium format (PhaseOne) and I absolutely can see the difference's in those jumps. Where I see much less of a benefit is in these crop-sensor medium format camera's like the GFX and Hassleblad camera's. If you had shown a PhaseOne IQ4 150mp sensor against a DX sensor, you'd see a massive difference in IQ. Especially if you print, crop heavily, or just in the tonality...the difference is clear. The downside is they are about $60,000 and they are not great AF wise. My colleague has the PhaseOne IQ4 150mp camera and had the previous model as well, they offered him an upgrade path, which made the new camera considerably less. So that is nice, but in order to afford PhaseOne or even borrow one you need a high-limit American Express black card or similair and 800 credit score lol. Seriously they do financial and background checks if you want to review one as UA-camr or otherwise, so it is sort of crazy the level of service and all that you get with such a purchase. Funny thing is almost all of his best work has been shot on D850's and other FX Nikon gear and not on his PhaseOne. Honestly even if I were extremely wealthy I would never buy such a camera. I would however love to someday have an older model if the price was right, something like a Phase One IQ1 or 2, which are about $4000-$6500. Simply because the files are sublime and I just love the "look" a bigger sensor produces. Nowadays nearly every camera is great or at least good enough and there are so many used options as people upgrade and go mirrorless...it's photo gear heaven right now. Some great deals on used DSLR gear if you get lucky or pay attention!
Im not a landscape photographer but have been a portrait photographer for nearly 30 years. I bought the GFX 50sii and the 100mm F2 glass. I can tell you this.... Since this purchase, My R5 and A7r3 are collecting dust. The color science is untouched and you will never have to touch the clarity or sharpness sliders again...ever
I work for a camera manufacturer where we are capable of 1.7million FPS, my hobby is 4x5" landscapes where I can shoot a max of about 2FPHr. Right tool for the job... In my job, where we analyse images on a sub-pixel level (yes, look it up), resolution & sharpness are everything. My best image which won me the Aus science photography prize was shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD. I love geeking out about gear, but know the most exciting part of photography is getting large chromes back from the lab, or the moment you know you've captured an epic event no one will capture the same way again...and those moments have very little to do with the gear.
I work for my mom , but i also do Astrophotography where we shoot 0,2FPHr , with a camera super cooled to -30C , while at the same time we heat up the lens , and when you do that and you have to you battle condensation in the system ,so we put those moisture absorbing pearls in the optical train , while at the same time keeping those pixels aligned with the Stars for hours on end on sub pixel level to get that shot . It is really fantastic geek stuff , forget 10 000$ camera , you need 10 000$ just to start doing it , and couple stacks more to get a good camera . Right tool for the job .
I agree with you about why one should and shouldn't buy the Medium and the crop sensor. Your basic advice is th fond something you like somewhere in the middle. I have a Nikon D850 and, at around 46 megapixels, it does everything I need it to do and it does it very well. The bottom line for me is it is paid for, I have the lenses I need. It has rock solid performance and the results are functionally as good as anyone else's. Also, I'm not in love with mirrorless cameras in general. The important thing for me do is to remind myself the best photos originate from between my ears and a camera its only the tool for capturing what I want.
I like the bench off to the right of the frame, I’d like to think I could spend some time there reading a book…..”Chasing Awe” by Gavin Hardcastle, link in the description below!!! 👍🏻
One way to draw a conclusion from this comparison is to buy into one of the major fullframe systems instead. That segment got the hi resolution (for most use-cases) and excellent DR, extensive and excellent lens line-ups, high frame rates, large buffers, a large variety of body types, top notch video and reasonable prices. In that segment we find a whole slew of excellent options on the used market as well. It is also in that segment we see the most R&D efforts from the developers. To put it short; it’s the sweet spot if we are regular users without extreme needs.
I made the change to the GFX 100s after moving on from a Canon 5D 4 and a 5D s and do not regret the choice. Even after being up all night waiting for the perfect light and having a face like Gavin Hardcastle, it's good to know my prints will be the best they can be for my clients. I am, by choice, a photographer that shoots slow and patiently and the GFX 100s suits my style beautifully.
Give him the bloody camera back, it’s second hand now anyway and you got it at cost. If you take off the free advertising you’re only taking back about $90.
Everyone knows you have the photography chops, but some people only want to see straight up reviews, tutorials etc. However, you are the best at blending humor with photography and not taking yourself too seriously (which a lot of people obviously like). I think the growth move for your channel is to keep your comedy/photography niche, but also blend in videos like this one to attract additional viewers. Great channel regardless!
As a happy amateur Canon user, all of this meant nothing to me, yet I so enjoyed this extended stretch of your serious and practical side. Kudos to Amanda for superb product placement!
I bought the 100s with the same the lenses you had last year in May. The point you made at the end about how much you enjoyed using it, is 100% true for me. I have never enjoyed photography as much as the last 6 months. I actively seek to go out and shoot with it, and it was the motivation I needed to finally get into photoshop for editing. Brilliant video, and for what it's worth I got the Fuji photo right 😎
As an output professional I'd add this. The medium format and full frame work (if done properly) produces cleaner work on archival gloss and matte media. Whether for good or bad a popular media is an archival canvas, a DX 24MP Nikon will get you a 30 inch wide native resolution print on that media and having more detail is not reproducible on that media. My experiance with a technical comparison between two bodies such as those tested is not, can you get a decent image out of both. I find the test of investment value is the difference in variable setting parameters in which you can obtain a viable capture. In my experiance the more expensive cameras in most cases will allow captures in a wider range of fstop, ISO and magnification settings allowing vastly different quality exposures. More artistic possibilities. Nice video. As Arnold said, I'll be back.
Having multiple cameras, the thing that I find obvious about APS-C (or smaller) images are always the tree branches or telephone wires. They always have a weird sharpness to them to make up for the size of the sensor. The contrast due to dynamic range on the cheaper APS-C cameras are another thing that is at times unnatural. Bigger sensor images are just effortlessly natural and more 3 dimensional but yes not worth the price for most of us.
Nice video. Couldn't agree more. It's all about choosing the right tool for the job, keeping in budget, trading off pros & cons. Regarding the comment about the GFX100S vs the GFX50SII. So, in theory, yes, lower pixel count per unit area gives you "better quality", it doesn't work in this case. The sensor in the GFX100S is the same technology as the Fujifilm XT-4, and the Sony A7RIV. It's a newer generation. The sensor in the GFX50SII is the same as the one that was in GFX50R, GFX50S, and even the Pentax 645Z. It's 8 year old technology, that Fuji has done a good job of extracting the most from. That said, even though it's not going to be "better", that sensor is still an amazing bit of kit. I used to have the GFX50R, and it was amazing what you could produce from it, (and can still produce from it). I have a 100S now, but image quality-wise I'd be happy with a 50SII. The only frustration I'd have is the lack of PDAF. Not an issue for landscape photographers I guess. A bit more useful for portrait shooters.
I have 3 Cameras; Fuji X-T20, Nikon D750 and the Fuji GFX 50s and the GFX 50s has the most realistic "3D" look even if you watch the image on a phone. For Landscape photography a real pleasure! 🙂
Just a couple details: - The output files on the A7RIV are 14bit, not 16. Only the internal image processing is 16 bit. So it makes sense for the GFX100 files to take more time. But I would still prefer something more universal like DNG or a file format that is truly free and open. That would probably also help with processing. - The sensor in the GFX50sII is not a BSI sensor (and that is a big deal!), doesn't have phase detection pixel AND is only 14 bit vs 16. In fact there is something like seven years of sensor development between the 50mp and the 100mp sensor. Regardless of resolution, these two sensors are generations apart. In general you are completely right, I think. Hardly anyone needs 100 megapixel files and even full frame is a bit overkill for most. ... On the other hand, you are already saving tons of money by being a camera guy instead of a car guy, sooo ... :D
if you’ve used a GFX 50 (S, R, S2), you’ll appreciate how supreme that “older sensor” is to any full frame sensor available today - the dynamic range difference is massive! i can easily recover a bad exposure on the GFX, which my spanking new Nikon will output as a muddled mess, rather than details (especially true for underexposed shadow areas!)
@@mortenthorpe I did have a 50s and a 50r, both for a very limited amount of time before getting the GFX100. They are great cameras for anything that doesn't move too much and the output will match or beat anything full frame. I agree with you. I'm not saying the 50mp sensor is bad, I'm just saying that the new sensor is even better ... by a lot. And when you look at the base cost of the GFX50sII and then think about the price difference that would get you the 100s, especially for someone who wants to build a full kit for like 10k+ or so, it would be a better long term investment to go for the best sensor on the planet right now. If you just want to try it out, don't get a GFX50sII, get a 50r used for like 2k and fart around with it. That's totally fine. it's not gonna drop in value for a while. But don't buy something that old brand new for that amount of money. That's a bad idea, I think.
I'm with Nikon since 1997 but I plan to switch to Fuji GFX. Not because of the better image quality (24MP are enough for my A2 prints) but because of the joy using Fujis. I rented one for a few trips and felt in love with the ergonomics, the user interface (swipe gestures). I slowed down my process and gave me more fun.
Agree! For most of us there is almost no justification for a medium format system. I am so happy with my Canon R- system, can't imagine a system that corresponds better to my needs. Concerning the Fuji GFX- cameras: Attention please, the base plates are not strong enough, tend to break easily!
🇨🇦/🇺🇸... Before the reveal... It looks like B has more dynamic range... that CAN be smart use of Lightroom though... EDIT: I was correctamundo! Well done, Gavin! As a large-format PRINTING technician, I know that whether or not an image is going to be printed AND if it is going to be printed LARGE & CLOSE (as on a wall in a corporate lobby) makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE! Corporate sales is where it's at, folks! And corporate sales is where you're going to recoup your cost difference!
12 Megapixel are most of the time enough for printing, even for bill boards. It depends on the viewing distance, but even on close distance I have acrylic prints from my Micro Four Thirds cameras with 12 (old Lumix G1) or 16 Megapixel (OM-D E-M1, E-M5) which look very sharp and are as big as 80x60cm. My biggest canvas print is 120x80cm and pin sharp. So for me the Megapixel race is over and I concentrate on different aspects of my cameras like usability, features and feeling in my hands. Other than that your videos are very entertaining and educating at the same time. Thank you for your content.
One of your best videos! I like your “If you’ve got the dough” comment. That’s why I upgraded from my D750 to a Z7ii with 2.8 24-70. No more nagging “if I just had better equipment” feeling. The photo is good or bad based solely on my skill level now. Put another way, “no excuses”.
My best photos were taken with my old Canon 5D from 15 years ago, mainly because it was so usable and intuitive. It's 80% about the person, not the camera. You can also take the sharpest photo in the world and then decide to soften the image to make it more film like after, negating the need for ultra sharp RAW files.
phewwww, I clicked this video with my eyes shut thinking I would have to buy a gfx and sell one of my children to afford it. but instead its an honest view (rare for youtube) and I finished still being happy with my A7R3 Thanks Gavin
A bit late to the party with my comment, but thanks for a really insightful appraisal of the GFX system. I've shot Fuji APS-C for years. Bought a GFX50R second-hand around 18 months ago to run alongside it, for those planned, set-piece shots where, as you say, speed doesn't matter. I liked the immediate familiarity of the camera (like a bigger version of my X-Pro2), but it's taken me 18 months to love it. I even had a wobble when the 40MP aps-c sensor came out, and borrowed an X-H2 from Fuji, considering going back to aps-c only. Ultimately though, and I know it's been said before and a bit of a cliche, there's "something about the medium format images" that I can't quite put my finger on. Weight-wise the 50R is quite a bit lighter than the 50SII, especially when paired with the 35-70, which I find is great optically, in spite of its relatively low price. I can happily stick that combination on a sling strap and throw it over my shoulder while hiking. I guess having had a brief but intense affair with that new 40MP sensor, I've realised where my true love lies, and it's with the medium format. (If I come by a few extra quid, I could be tempted to pick up a little X-T5 for some fun on the side though!)
Where content is king, when the content is very good, sensor size hardly matters, and indeed our phones are quite frequently more than good enough. But where content is similar, sensor size (noise, color depth, dynamic range). as well as of course lens choice and editing, is a primary way to stand out. And sometimes that extra performance of larger sensors comes across almost subconsciously, where the images just looks/feels "better", even if pixel peeping fails to show noticeable differences.
Agree 100%. Great comparison and discussion. As an enthusiast and not a professional, the no 1 criteria for hauling my heavy 50S mk1 and a couple of lenses is that it is "a joy to use". Both when taking the image and in post. What you can do with that high dynamic range continually astounds me.
Interesting enough; however , if there is nothing to compare with then there can be no comparison . Put each as a framed printed photo in different buildings most would never notice difference . But the problem today (likely always has been) is the camera holder is so consumed with their gear they forget photography is still more about the quality of light than the tools used to record the light .
I am so sorry for your loss about the Fuji Camera. But I hope that letting you know that you make me happy each and every Monday, releasing a new video, makes you feel a bit better. And hey at the end of the day, regardless of those pros and cons, the camera is just a tool and the result counts much more than what has been used. And still, it is that you as a photographer taking the shot. It is your eyes that catch the moment of light and preserve it for the viewer. Yours sincerely 1M subscriber.
Great video, Gavin, thank you. I have been through many cameras since I started shooting (film) in the 1980's when I was just a teenager. In the 2000's I got into digital, first going aps-c, then MFT, then back to aps-c, then Nikon full frame with the D700. Sold that to get into the D800E. It was always such a drag, though, all that bulky weight... made my wrists hurt lol. So I bought the Sony RX1R when it came out... and my world changed. Small, full frame, mirrorless, and that Zeiss 35mm f2 Sonnar T lens was spectacular! My back up cameras at the time were Fuji aps-c. I loved the Sony RX1R, but after a few years got a bit tired of the fixed lens, so I sold it and got into the Fuji GFX 50R. This is the older 'rangefinder' style GFX. Fairly small, and with a grip is nice to handle. I got the Fuji GFX 50R and the Fuji GF 45mm f2.8 lens combo used for under $3,500. That lens (though not the best in the Fuji GF lineup) is very sharp. I'm looking to get the Fuji 23mm next, but man is it pricey, as are all the Fuji GF lenses. Since I was into Nikon full frame for so long, I also have a nice collection of Nikon legacy glass and I use those quite successfully on the 50R, though sometimes have to crop a wee bit due to vignetting as the lens doesn't completely cover the sensor-- still, they are plenty useful. I use a cheap Fotasy adapter that cost about $20.00 new. I also use my Nikon F mount Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro Planar with it and the images are stunning. My back up camera is a full frame Nikon Z series... and I have a couple of Nikon Z lenses, plus use my Nikon legacy glass with that camera, as well. You're absolutely right... the Fuji GFX medium format cameras are a joy to use. I sold all of my aps-c sensor cameras and lenses years ago and will never go back to that size sensor. Full frame and medium format is where it's at, IMO. Once you've handled a Fuji GFX camera, the aps-c cameras feel like cheap, plastic toys. There are some drawbacks though with the GFX cameras, as you mentioned. I'd love to go to the Fuji 100S, but I would (seriously) need to buy a new computer. I have a decently spec'd older Mac, and it is slow to process the Fuji 50R RAW files (I can't imagine processing 100MP files with it). I mostly shoot landscapes, so the the slowness of the GFX system doesn't affect me... and really, it isn't all THAT slow unless you're shooting very fast action and need blazing fast FPS. Lastly, the Fuji GF lenses are damn expensive. I'm writing this to let folks know about the early Fuji 50 GFX cameras... they can be had for relatively cheap on the used market. I love mine-- and for now, the 50MP is more than enough.
You can see the gradation of the Fuji is more subtle. Pretty identical for digital. Print detail and mainly post processing is where the differences will manifest. *Got it right, but it's pretty obvious that the a6000 can't hold its highlights together. Bracketing or $10k 😂 High dynamic range is built-in some cameras like Nikon D-Lighting and Canon Auto Lighting Optimizer. Your post review 👌🏾 I think you can use an SSD with the Fuji. Now what you can't replace from the Fuji is it's color depth and workflow for high end client's. Imagine having to photograph for a museum, art collector, products such as an Omega or Rolex.
With the A6000 having a much older sensor, it's impressive how close it comes to the Fuji image. With improvement in sensor tech, the APSC cameras would be a greater bang for the buck.
The right tool for each use, i have both x and gfx from fuji, and depending on what i want to do, i choose one, and i love them. For exemple for animals, nothing beats the xf 200mm f2 (or 280 f/2.8 with the 1.4x), while for portrait, the GF 110 is my heart choice.
Great video. I love both my Fujifilm xe3 and Nikon z6ii. They just have different strengths. I think I am gonna keep using these two systems for a long time.
This was a very different episode. I liked it as much as your regular ones. This confirms that you can be entertaining even if you are more serious. It also confirms that you have a bright future: older, more grumpy, but still very entertaining!
Great video - thank you. I have the 100s and agree with everything you say. It's not for everyone. I agonised over the 100s and the 50s mkii. What steered me to the 100 in the end was the dismal HD video on the 50s mkii-at these prices I want 4K (Fuji really saw me coming-I'm guessing that 4K nudge is by design). I actually really wanted a Leica SL2 as I have a Leica M and lenses, but I figured I couldn't afford any of the Leica L-mount lenses. And when I did comparisons of L-mount and GF-mount lenses - I found the GF appeared the same at half the price. Most importantly, I want the 102mp for prints. The subtlety, range and colour I get are astounding when compared to files from my 5Dmkiii and my M9. Even when I use my vintage Leica lenses on the Fuji. Furthermore, I figure that as display technology improves, ultra high res digital displays will demand resolutions of 100mp and beyond. I want my stuff to look good on a very large 8K+ display. And as discussed in the video, being able to crop-in without losing any detail is really nice. And yes-it's a joy to use and a joy to hold. My benchmarks are my Canon 5D mkiii and my Leica M9. The 100s sits somewhere between them in terms of UX and trumps them both in terms of ergonomics. To be fair the M9 literally does nothing except take photos. I have to admit that I was disappointed by the 100s' speed. There's a slight delay between the pressing and the taking. It's not huge, but it's enough to annoy me. This is something I might have picked up if it weren't for the fact that I couldn't walk into a store during a lockdown. There's also no satisfying click or snap feel or sound-it's more of a disappointing thud. Call me crazy (and I know many of you will), but I have no regrets. The 100s is fantastic.
This is a really good comparison. I would have liked to have seen the difference between the GFX and the XT3/XT4, reason being that I suspect some of the colour science that Fuji employs would make the comparisons even harder to spot. I could tell the difference because I was looking for what I would expect to see in the shadows of my own fuji. Another interesting test would be to see what happens when the images are printed.
Really enjoyed that Gavin, I did guess the the correct image but that may have been fluke 🧐 What I did notice & is quite frankly a disgrace….is that you’ve only 70k subscribers !!! Come on boys & girls, spread the word !! 😉
Ein toller Typ und sehr guter klassischer Fotograf, man kann noch etwas Lernen, danke für deine Mühe und das Aufzeichnen deiner auch lustigen Szenen, wenigsten mal ein Fotograf den man sein gesagtes glauben kann. Eine Traumlandschaften die er dort vorfinden kann. Er braucht die Motive nur Auflesen.
Something I want to point is there is some work arounds for things if you research or look into. One example is at 32:32 I want to point out with Lightroom's enhance feature and AI pixel enhancer, I was able to take a photo that was shot on my XT-3 and even cropped in, and blow it up to a 50 inch print. Was it some work to get it done, of course, but it's possible. I think you pointed it out perfectly in the video, if you have the knowledge and wit, you can probably get the same results with something cheaper. Even now, I'm trying to replicate the look of medium format film and that separation the Mamiyas produce with my XT-3. I'm using a canon FD F1.2 lens and the results have been beautiful with the creamy dreamy look it has.
I spent my career in photography and photo-reproduction / offset printing. The weakest link is the resolution (and color perception) of the human eye why a pattern of CYMK halftone dots with a 150 dot per inch screen ruling is acceptable at a viewing distance of 18 inches. The rule of thumb I’ve always used for digital print equating pixels to print dimensions is pixels/300. But if you understand how to do up-sampling, USM and noise reduction it can be pushed higher. Just sharing photos electronically usually involves down-sampling of the images.
Great video. Love the dry Northern English (Oldham?) humour Perhaps a key reason to buy the big Fuji (now 100Sii) is the inspiration it provides to take better photographs over smaller format cameras. Great for Fine Art photographers who have the time and money to exploit the superb no compromise images it can produce. I think your comparison tells the story that unless you want high end exhibition large prints a full frame camera competes very well and even APSC. Web photographers do not need the hassle of storing and editing then downsizing a 100. M pixel file. Subscribed!
Your comment on the 50 vs the 100 (pixel density) is exactly what I was thinking. I'm still shooting DSLR's and I 'm considering where to go next. Great video Gavin
Because of this episode, I am now a subscriber! Thanks… you just answered my dilemma. Dec ‘24 I went from A7r4 & A7S3. To Fuji XH2 and Xh2S. But been thinking about moving to GFX after watching your Lake Louise. And yes dump the XH2 for the GFX 50S2. Keep the XH2S. BTW reason I left SONY tired of f’n with the menu! I moved to Japan and can get great prices. Car analogy sold me! Thanks!
A camera is a data collection tool. It's sensible to collect as much data as accurately as possible. What you do afterwards is another issue. As such, higher resolution, wider dynamic range, less noise and better resolving optics with less aberrations are all worth it .... if you can afford it and carry any additional weight that comes with it. My 1.9mpx Coolpix images from 1999 look pretty crappy on an iMac. How will yours look in a few years on a 90" 8k or better TV ? It will come. Take photos with both today and the future in mind .....
You’d be amazed what you can get for second hand camera gear at the moment! I regularly turn over camera bodies and lens if they are not in regular use….
Great video. I used to sell cameras back in the film days, when the difference between cameras was pretty much just down to lens quality and features/build, as the “sensor” (film) could be the same in every comparable camera. With digital cameras, larger sensors of course have their benefits, especially in dynamic range and low light shooting, but lens quality is still one of the most important things for image quality. What really holds smaller sensors back is that since they are targeted at entry level users, the manufacturer often does not create high quality pro lenses for them. Fuji is a notable exception, along with Olympus and Panasonic making some pro level lenses on their micro 4/3 cameras. As a matter of fact, with good light and shooting at base ISO, those smaller sensor cameras with pro lenses will rival much larger formats. As you mentioned in this video, higher quality lens on the APS-C camera would likely have closed this image quality gap even further. People like to fight and argue online all the time about whether this camera system or that is “better”, but there is no one camera that will excel at everything. We humans have a tendency to devolve into brand loyalty and fanboyism, and honestly companies love to feed into that because it generates sales. But every camera system and format has pros and cons, and arguing about them online is pointless. Learning the pros and cons of the systems and choosing the correct system that meets your needs and/or wants is the only rational way to approach buying decisions, and in many people’s cases (especially non-pros), the smaller, cheaper systems are going to be the better choice.
One thing that you have not mentioned is that every sensor and lens combination has its own unique aesthetic, and the Fuji medium format system is no exception. You either like it or you don’t, and if you do like it but can’t afford it, you can always rent one for a paying shoot. I have gone the other way, and have a couple of Fuji APS-C bodies and two collections of vintage glass - one consisting of razor sharp Nikon primes, the other is a carefully researched collection of possibly the worst lenses ever made, which yield incredible results impossible to achieve with a high end medium format system you so avidly describe. I guess it’s down to making the very best of what you already have, or is affordably available. In the end, a good picture doesn’t care what camera has recorded it.
My thinking is if a camera makes you enjoy your craft and it inspires you, then go with that. For me in particular, Nikon got me into photography, while Fuji made me a photographer.
This is a great comparison and really addresses when the key moment that a digital medium format camera would be worth it. Specifically, only if you regularly print very large. If you even print typical 8x10, 16x20 sizes, either option could work very well. Huge panoramas are where this camera would shine, and given the price you'd better be selling for a lot of $$$!
First time watching you. Great video andI love your presentation style! I think the last chapter about buying the best you can is the bottom line for anything. I'd rather have one great lens and camera, than mediocre kit. The moments captured will never happen again, you can't go back and do better. Every moment is once in a lifetime. Choose wisely.
Garvin, 'By Jingo' I knew you could assemble a serious equipment video with some cogent takeaways!! Well, almost, we'll pretend we didn't see the unicorn! Really great and honest review of the GFX series which I have drooling over since the Grumpton moved over from the D850. Forgot that he dusted it off for the wave action shots. Your reviews and some others convinced me to move from the D850 to the Z7 and new Z lens line, mostly to lighten the load, but now that I have a new set I am loving the EVF, new controls, and the fabulous lens line-up of 2.8 zooms. I would still love to have the GFS features of the full-color histogram, incorporated intervalometer, and the vertical format adjusting screen, but I saved $3500 to make a pilgrimage to favorite out yonder destinations as per your recommendations. In all seriousness....even though we didn't hear from Amanda, really great review,!!! Cheers!
Nikon Z6 and HP Z3200 user. I prefer to save all those excess MF dollars and spend them on diesel for my Sprinter to take me to distant, photogenic locations. That said, I envy the articulated VF on the Fuji.
Hi Gavin. After all this analyzing and philosophizing (on your part, not mine) I think we agree on the main point: when it comes to expensive things, the buying decision is purely sentimental. We buy what we like, not what we need. Looking forward to your next video. This was a bit too serious for me.
Hi Gavin, it was nice to see the difference (or not) between the 2 cameras. I think undoubtedly if your a pro then the Fuji is definitely worth the investment, but if not even if you do print your images the only person who is going to know is you. If family/friends who are not photographers walk in and see your picture on the wall they aren't going to walk up to it and A) pixel peep and B) say hmmm, images quality's not so sharp on that is it....lost a bit of detail in those shadows... I'd be more than happy to print that Sony image and hang it on the wall, nice shot that Gavin...
This might sound weird, but I was kind of torn apart whether to get Sony A7iii or A7iv, but after watching this video there is no contest anymore and it will be A7iii with the extra cash going for lenses and accessories. What we see in the video is not that surprising or groundbreaking, but sometimes you need to see something like this to take you back to your senses. This was a great and very interesting video. Thank you.
I'm very happy with my GFX 50r. It's quite a bit lighter (like 20%) and I've paid like total of 3500€ with a lens. Yeah, it might not have all the bells and whistles of 100s and "only" 50 megapixels (which makes them indeed more enjoyable to process than 100 megapixel ones) .. it strikes a great balance for those landscape shots.
The 100 megapixel camera will have more visible noise than the 50 if you’re zooming in to 100%, but that’s because it’s double the size. When you scale them both to the same size, the noise gets compressed down and the low light performance is the same or better. It also gives you more headroom for noise reduction while still getting more detail.
I almost did not watch this episode. However, I was curious about what you would say. I should have expected what you did, an excellent presentation. This should be helpful for many. Thanks for sharing. Happy I watched.
To me if your not going to enlarge files to very large prints, you don't need the fuji. A 100 mega pixel file to enlarge wall size prints yes you need the fuji, for instantagram stuff use the sony. Gavin thanks for this technical video today w/o the silliness , it was refreshing.
Smart decision. I never thought it was really worth the extra cash. I'm also not a big believer in having to keep getting better gear. I still shoot with two SLR bodies and I'm good with that.
Amazing video, I like the thoroughness of it all. I'm on a crop fuji body and have thought of going FF sony but those menus, I just can't do it for the difference.
A UK photographer James Popsys I think his name is. Shot a photo with his Sony R and a Amazon £30 camera.. On UA-cam I had a job to tell the difference on my phone! He edits his colours in a way they are a little flat, which helped the Amazon camera. Reason I say, this is a similar example.. It's all about the person behind the camera.
That Fuji color too, so pretty. One downside though beyond cost is the size of that beast, and the limited reach and shallow depth of field from that huge sensor. But the dividends are quite stunning, and it helps when you have a real pro behind it.
The A7R IV is a really great compromise. It is - to my hands - just large enough to be quite comfortable to hold longer than one would in landscape work (the A6xxx are unacceptably small) and thus not any larger than it needs to be. Files are not small, but still well manageable. Lens options - which is one of the most important factors to decide on - are much better. Starting at the wide end with either of the excellent 12-24 GM or 16-35 GM, only two more lenses of which there are very good ones, take you all the way to 400mm. It would be great if Fuji pushed forward in that regard like Sony did, but I doubt they will as much, its a smaller market and they have to split their lens development resources between their APS-C and medium format lineup, where Sony can concentrate their efforts (when it comes to high end lenses) to the full-frame compatible ones thanks to the single mount. Given the rather short focal length range of the available zoom lenses (which sure helps to make them that good optically), even if Fuji added options on both the wide and long end, you'd still end up with at least 4, more likely 5 big lenses in your bag instead of 3 medium ones to cover a similar total range. Heck, I went with the A7R IV instead of Canon R5, among other reasons, for the complete kit being about 1 kg lighter while having the better ultra wide lens. The 50 MP GFX cameras, however, would be by far the worst choice in my book - you combine big size and high cost for that resolution with the depth of field disadvantage (for landscape etc.) and limited lens selection. It only makes sense to studio portrait shooters and such that strive for the shallow depth of field and still like good resolution.
@fototripper I live in Denmark and here is absolutely nothing worth wasting pixels on, but I don't think I could go through life if I lived in Canada without owning a medium format!!🙄 Not only cuz of the resolution and more light/dynamic and brilliant optics, but also the color tonality. So I think the answer is more than obvious to a guy like you😊 Never the less I just ordered a GFX50II + the 63 mm just for kicks😋 and no, it is not overkill by any means considering the fairly cheap price. I don't understand some people that say that. It's the same people that in the past said jpeg and h264/5 is good enough for native shoot. Sure, instant coffee can also be good enough🤮🤮 Why would anyone not always aim for the best possible visuals + quality!? Also for future proofing ones work/hobby. - Btw you can get the gfx100 used or demo for around 2750 USD at Goecker in Denmark witch is a highly professional shop. And with two years warranty. I assume there is simular shops in Canada that sell around same price.
Glad that you informed us that higher magapixel cameras will slow down our computers. I upgradef from a APCS to a full frame 3 years ago and very soon after that I had to do the same with the computer. It's probably close to the cost of a normal car to move to the Fuji, if you factor in all the other equipment you need to upgrade/buy.
a macmini M1 performs remarkably well, using capture one. if you use Adobes crappy software- that’s on you! i use it daily for 50 moix gfx files, and tested it using 102 mpix - where it slowed a bit - but not enough to matter
@@mortenthorpe Sure. But I don't use Mac or capture one, so I just doubled the ram and everything was fine. And also, I came from 16 mpix to 25 mpix, but enought to slow things down.
Gavin I look forward to your vlogs, they make me laugh. I enjoyed you taking us on a tour with the Fuji GFX 100S. Maybe Fuji is watching and they will let you knees the camera. I wouldn’t hold my breath but you never know. Everyone from the F4 Road-trip would be Fuji shooters except for Nick then.
30:40... thats pretty much true. I began with a EOS 400D Kit. It wasnt a good camera from the beginning, but it was "ok". I had my fun with it and got a bit into photography. But i found out very fast.... photography is a SUPER EXPENSIVE HOBBY. Later i upgraded it with some 2nd hand EF lenses, some lenses were awesome (like a Sigma 100mm Macro Lens or a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM which im still using) and i enjoyed them, but many were "trash" (EF 50mm 1.4, EF 75-300 IS USM, EF 300 F4 L,...) and literally made me quit photography for some years since i could not and didnt wanted to afford the better EF glasses. Also my DSLR began to get older than it was already as i bought it fked up 2nd hand (550D for 60€!), took me months to realize the AF sensors are misaligned and thats why literally 99% of the images were out of focus (or at least not perfectly focussed)... besides not really good or fitting lenses for the usecases! Since i got after many years finally a "super expensive" lens (800€ 2nd hand, RF 800 F11, literally the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE Supertele for RF mount) to my EOS RP (which is also a charme compared to old DSLRs) its so much more enjoyable to go out, because normally i was going out and with MUCH LUCK i came home with at best 1 or 2 usable images, normally i would have been better off by just using the smartphone since its image would have been better (!!!!!!) or not even trying to take any pictures at all
I really enjoyed this video, especially the bit where you talk about the joy of working with the best tools you can afford to get the best possible results. Good reasoning for and against the Fuji. Until I win the lottery, I will stay with my Canon 5D IV though.
Crop aps-c vs Crop medium format. The thing is though, when your zooming in to 250% the crop photo will be falling apart. I have my monitor setup so when I'm looking at a print size preview, the photo will enlarge by 50% and here you are zooming in 5 times more than that. You have to ask yourself how much you or your client wants to crop an image and how big you want to print your image and how fussy you are with retaining fine details, examining the print close up. Most people will not print regularly larger than A3 or A2 so the crop camera will do the job just fine. I'm guessing that at least half the people that buy the crop medium format Fuji want the pleasure of zooming in 200%-400% on the their hi-res monitors and try to justify why they "need" the (slightly) better resolution than what a full frame camera can offer.
Another angle I always consider before "upgrading" is "Will it help make me more money than what I'm using now?" The answer is usually "No" and I happily save myself a ton of cash. There are many pros out there using Canon 5DMKIVs, Nikon D850s and other older camera systems and their work is stellar as is their bank accounts. I 100% agree that if you are just rolling in the money, go for it - we'd all drive a Ferrari if we could.
Buy My Book www.fototripper.com/chasing-awe-landscape-photography-book-gavin-hardcastle/
Ich kann mir dein schönes Fotobuch leider nicht kaufen, weil es mir viel zu teuer und nur in englisch geschrieben ist! Sehr schöne Landschaften wo ich im Leben selbst nie hinkommen werde.
You know the Fuji GFX series is amazing and they deserve some serious credit, however I just don't see the cropped medium sensor as enough of a size jump to really benefit over what full frame can do. The Nikon Z7 II, Sony A7R IV and even Nikon Z9 are maybe better buys for certain audiences. I've used DX, FX and medium format (PhaseOne) and I absolutely can see the difference's in those jumps. Where I see much less of a benefit is in these crop-sensor medium format camera's like the GFX and Hassleblad camera's. If you had shown a PhaseOne IQ4 150mp sensor against a DX sensor, you'd see a massive difference in IQ. Especially if you print, crop heavily, or just in the tonality...the difference is clear. The downside is they are about $60,000 and they are not great AF wise. My colleague has the PhaseOne IQ4 150mp camera and had the previous model as well, they offered him an upgrade path, which made the new camera considerably less. So that is nice, but in order to afford PhaseOne or even borrow one you need a high-limit American Express black card or similair and 800 credit score lol. Seriously they do financial and background checks if you want to review one as UA-camr or otherwise, so it is sort of crazy the level of service and all that you get with such a purchase. Funny thing is almost all of his best work has been shot on D850's and other FX Nikon gear and not on his PhaseOne. Honestly even if I were extremely wealthy I would never buy such a camera. I would however love to someday have an older model if the price was right, something like a Phase One IQ1 or 2, which are about $4000-$6500. Simply because the files are sublime and I just love the "look" a bigger sensor produces. Nowadays nearly every camera is great or at least good enough and there are so many used options as people upgrade and go mirrorless...it's photo gear heaven right now. Some great deals on used DSLR gear if you get lucky or pay attention!
Dude, you sound just like Sean Bean in the Sharpe movies, lol! Extremely engaging
Im not a landscape photographer but have been a portrait photographer for nearly 30 years. I bought the GFX 50sii and the 100mm F2 glass. I can tell you this.... Since this purchase, My R5 and A7r3 are collecting dust. The color science is untouched and you will never have to touch the clarity or sharpness sliders again...ever
Your right. I got the hassleblad X2D. Since then I don’t want to pick up Sony A7RV
My personal dilemma in buying the 100Sii is having to let my Canon R5 go……..
Sounds like I won’t miss it (too much!).
@@GurmeetSingh-fr8uo rich hobbyists...
Thanks Gavin. You just confirmed what I always say. "Use what you have. Don't worry about having the newest or best. Get outside and enjoy life."
I work for a camera manufacturer where we are capable of 1.7million FPS, my hobby is 4x5" landscapes where I can shoot a max of about 2FPHr. Right tool for the job...
In my job, where we analyse images on a sub-pixel level (yes, look it up), resolution & sharpness are everything. My best image which won me the Aus science photography prize was shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD. I love geeking out about gear, but know the most exciting part of photography is getting large chromes back from the lab, or the moment you know you've captured an epic event no one will capture the same way again...and those moments have very little to do with the gear.
I work for my mom , but i also do Astrophotography where we shoot 0,2FPHr , with a camera super cooled to -30C , while at the same time we heat up the lens , and when you do that and you have to you battle condensation in the system ,so we put those moisture absorbing pearls in the optical train , while at the same time keeping those pixels aligned with the Stars for hours on end on sub pixel level to get that shot . It is really fantastic geek stuff , forget 10 000$ camera , you need 10 000$ just to start doing it , and couple stacks more to get a good camera .
Right tool for the job .
Why am I watching a camera that I cannot afford and never will?
Because Gavin you are awesome!
And the rainbow unicorn.
I agree with you about why one should and shouldn't buy the Medium and the crop sensor. Your basic advice is th fond something you like somewhere in the middle. I have a Nikon D850 and, at around 46 megapixels, it does everything I need it to do and it does it very well. The bottom line for me is it is paid for, I have the lenses I need. It has rock solid performance and the results are functionally as good as anyone else's. Also, I'm not in love with mirrorless cameras in general. The important thing for me do is to remind myself the best photos originate from between my ears and a camera its only the tool for capturing what I want.
The best points were encouraging people to think about what they are using the photography for before getting into the gear buying game.
I like the bench off to the right of the frame, I’d like to think I could spend some time there reading a book…..”Chasing Awe” by Gavin Hardcastle, link in the description below!!! 👍🏻
One way to draw a conclusion from this comparison is to buy into one of the major fullframe systems instead. That segment got the hi resolution (for most use-cases) and excellent DR, extensive and excellent lens line-ups, high frame rates, large buffers, a large variety of body types, top notch video and reasonable prices. In that segment we find a whole slew of excellent options on the used market as well. It is also in that segment we see the most R&D efforts from the developers. To put it short; it’s the sweet spot if we are regular users without extreme needs.
I made the change to the GFX 100s after moving on from a Canon 5D 4 and a 5D s and do not regret the choice. Even after being up all night waiting for the perfect light and having a face like Gavin Hardcastle, it's good to know my prints will be the best they can be for my clients. I am, by choice, a photographer that shoots slow and patiently and the GFX 100s suits my style beautifully.
Give him the bloody camera back, it’s second hand now anyway and you got it at cost. If you take off the free advertising you’re only taking back about $90.
Everyone knows you have the photography chops, but some people only want to see straight up reviews, tutorials etc. However, you are the best at blending humor with photography and not taking yourself too seriously (which a lot of people obviously like). I think the growth move for your channel is to keep your comedy/photography niche, but also blend in videos like this one to attract additional viewers. Great channel regardless!
Enjoy the subtle humor in your videos. Good stuff man
As a happy amateur Canon user, all of this meant nothing to me, yet I so enjoyed this extended stretch of your serious and practical side. Kudos to Amanda for superb product placement!
I bought the 100s with the same the lenses you had last year in May. The point you made at the end about how much you enjoyed using it, is 100% true for me. I have never enjoyed photography as much as the last 6 months. I actively seek to go out and shoot with it, and it was the motivation I needed to finally get into photoshop for editing. Brilliant video, and for what it's worth I got the Fuji photo right 😎
That's WONDERFUL to hear!
As an output professional I'd add this. The medium format and full frame work (if done properly) produces cleaner work on archival gloss and matte media. Whether for good or bad a popular media is an archival canvas, a DX 24MP Nikon will get you a 30 inch wide native resolution print on that media and having more detail is not reproducible on that media.
My experiance with a technical comparison between two bodies such as those tested is not, can you get a decent image out of both. I find the test of investment value is the difference in variable setting parameters in which you can obtain a viable capture. In my experiance the more expensive cameras in most cases will allow captures in a wider range of fstop, ISO and magnification settings allowing vastly different quality exposures. More artistic possibilities. Nice video. As Arnold said, I'll be back.
Having multiple cameras, the thing that I find obvious about APS-C (or smaller) images are always the tree branches or telephone wires. They always have a weird sharpness to them to make up for the size of the sensor. The contrast due to dynamic range on the cheaper APS-C cameras are another thing that is at times unnatural. Bigger sensor images are just effortlessly natural and more 3 dimensional but yes not worth the price for most of us.
Nice video. Couldn't agree more. It's all about choosing the right tool for the job, keeping in budget, trading off pros & cons. Regarding the comment about the GFX100S vs the GFX50SII. So, in theory, yes, lower pixel count per unit area gives you "better quality", it doesn't work in this case. The sensor in the GFX100S is the same technology as the Fujifilm XT-4, and the Sony A7RIV. It's a newer generation. The sensor in the GFX50SII is the same as the one that was in GFX50R, GFX50S, and even the Pentax 645Z. It's 8 year old technology, that Fuji has done a good job of extracting the most from. That said, even though it's not going to be "better", that sensor is still an amazing bit of kit. I used to have the GFX50R, and it was amazing what you could produce from it, (and can still produce from it). I have a 100S now, but image quality-wise I'd be happy with a 50SII. The only frustration I'd have is the lack of PDAF. Not an issue for landscape photographers I guess. A bit more useful for portrait shooters.
I have 3 Cameras; Fuji X-T20, Nikon D750 and the Fuji GFX 50s and the GFX 50s has the most realistic "3D" look even if you watch the image on a phone. For Landscape photography a real pleasure! 🙂
Just a couple details:
- The output files on the A7RIV are 14bit, not 16. Only the internal image processing is 16 bit. So it makes sense for the GFX100 files to take more time. But I would still prefer something more universal like DNG or a file format that is truly free and open. That would probably also help with processing.
- The sensor in the GFX50sII is not a BSI sensor (and that is a big deal!), doesn't have phase detection pixel AND is only 14 bit vs 16. In fact there is something like seven years of sensor development between the 50mp and the 100mp sensor. Regardless of resolution, these two sensors are generations apart.
In general you are completely right, I think. Hardly anyone needs 100 megapixel files and even full frame is a bit overkill for most.
... On the other hand, you are already saving tons of money by being a camera guy instead of a car guy, sooo ... :D
if you’ve used a GFX 50 (S, R, S2), you’ll appreciate how supreme that “older sensor” is to any full frame sensor available today - the dynamic range difference is massive! i can easily recover a bad exposure on the GFX, which my spanking new Nikon will output as a muddled mess, rather than details (especially true for underexposed shadow areas!)
@@mortenthorpe I did have a 50s and a 50r, both for a very limited amount of time before getting the GFX100. They are great cameras for anything that doesn't move too much and the output will match or beat anything full frame. I agree with you. I'm not saying the 50mp sensor is bad, I'm just saying that the new sensor is even better ... by a lot.
And when you look at the base cost of the GFX50sII and then think about the price difference that would get you the 100s, especially for someone who wants to build a full kit for like 10k+ or so, it would be a better long term investment to go for the best sensor on the planet right now.
If you just want to try it out, don't get a GFX50sII, get a 50r used for like 2k and fart around with it. That's totally fine. it's not gonna drop in value for a while. But don't buy something that old brand new for that amount of money. That's a bad idea, I think.
I'm with Nikon since 1997 but I plan to switch to Fuji GFX. Not because of the better image quality (24MP are enough for my A2 prints) but because of the joy using Fujis. I rented one for a few trips and felt in love with the ergonomics, the user interface (swipe gestures). I slowed down my process and gave me more fun.
Man, that stupid feeling when you're done watching Gavins video, knowing you'll have to wait another week for a new one.
Agree! For most of us there is almost no justification for a medium format system. I am so happy with my Canon R- system, can't imagine a system that corresponds better to my needs.
Concerning the Fuji GFX- cameras: Attention please, the base plates are not strong enough, tend to break easily!
🇨🇦/🇺🇸... Before the reveal... It looks like B has more dynamic range... that CAN be smart use of Lightroom though... EDIT: I was correctamundo!
Well done, Gavin! As a large-format PRINTING technician, I know that whether or not an image is going to be printed AND if it is going to be printed LARGE & CLOSE (as on a wall in a corporate lobby) makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE! Corporate sales is where it's at, folks! And corporate sales is where you're going to recoup your cost difference!
12 Megapixel are most of the time enough for printing, even for bill boards. It depends on the viewing distance, but even on close distance I have acrylic prints from my Micro Four Thirds cameras with 12 (old Lumix G1) or 16 Megapixel (OM-D E-M1, E-M5) which look very sharp and are as big as 80x60cm. My biggest canvas print is 120x80cm and pin sharp. So for me the Megapixel race is over and I concentrate on different aspects of my cameras like usability, features and feeling in my hands. Other than that your videos are very entertaining and educating at the same time. Thank you for your content.
True Nikon D700 is ideal for landscape photography.
One of your best videos! I like your “If you’ve got the dough” comment. That’s why I upgraded from my D750 to a Z7ii with 2.8 24-70. No more nagging “if I just had better equipment” feeling. The photo is good or bad based solely on my skill level now. Put another way, “no excuses”.
When Gavin gets serious, I know to sit up straight and pay attention. Come on Fuji, get in touch with him.
My best photos were taken with my old Canon 5D from 15 years ago, mainly because it was so usable and intuitive. It's 80% about the person, not the camera.
You can also take the sharpest photo in the world and then decide to soften the image to make it more film like after, negating the need for ultra sharp RAW files.
phewwww, I clicked this video with my eyes shut thinking I would have to buy a gfx and sell one of my children to afford it. but instead its an honest view (rare for youtube) and I finished still being happy with my A7R3
Thanks Gavin
A bit late to the party with my comment, but thanks for a really insightful appraisal of the GFX system. I've shot Fuji APS-C for years. Bought a GFX50R second-hand around 18 months ago to run alongside it, for those planned, set-piece shots where, as you say, speed doesn't matter. I liked the immediate familiarity of the camera (like a bigger version of my X-Pro2), but it's taken me 18 months to love it. I even had a wobble when the 40MP aps-c sensor came out, and borrowed an X-H2 from Fuji, considering going back to aps-c only. Ultimately though, and I know it's been said before and a bit of a cliche, there's "something about the medium format images" that I can't quite put my finger on.
Weight-wise the 50R is quite a bit lighter than the 50SII, especially when paired with the 35-70, which I find is great optically, in spite of its relatively low price. I can happily stick that combination on a sling strap and throw it over my shoulder while hiking.
I guess having had a brief but intense affair with that new 40MP sensor, I've realised where my true love lies, and it's with the medium format. (If I come by a few extra quid, I could be tempted to pick up a little X-T5 for some fun on the side though!)
Where content is king, when the content is very good, sensor size hardly matters, and indeed our phones are quite frequently more than good enough. But where content is similar, sensor size (noise, color depth, dynamic range). as well as of course lens choice and editing, is a primary way to stand out.
And sometimes that extra performance of larger sensors comes across almost subconsciously, where the images just looks/feels "better", even if pixel peeping fails to show noticeable differences.
Agree 100%. Great comparison and discussion. As an enthusiast and not a professional, the no 1 criteria for hauling my heavy 50S mk1 and a couple of lenses is that it is "a joy to use". Both when taking the image and in post. What you can do with that high dynamic range continually astounds me.
Probably the best analysis of the subject i've seen on youtube. 👏
Interesting enough; however , if there is nothing to compare with then there can be no comparison . Put each as a framed printed photo in different buildings most would never notice difference . But the problem today (likely always has been) is the camera holder is so consumed with their gear they forget photography is still more about the quality of light than the tools used to record the light .
6:25 a camera filming a camera thats filming a camera taking photos, now thats next level!
I am so sorry for your loss about the Fuji Camera. But I hope that letting you know that you make me happy each and every Monday, releasing a new video, makes you feel a bit better. And hey at the end of the day, regardless of those pros and cons, the camera is just a tool and the result counts much more than what has been used. And still, it is that you as a photographer taking the shot. It is your eyes that catch the moment of light and preserve it for the viewer. Yours sincerely 1M subscriber.
Great video, Gavin, thank you. I have been through many cameras since I started shooting (film) in the 1980's when I was just a teenager. In the 2000's I got into digital, first going aps-c, then MFT, then back to aps-c, then Nikon full frame with the D700. Sold that to get into the D800E. It was always such a drag, though, all that bulky weight... made my wrists hurt lol. So I bought the Sony RX1R when it came out... and my world changed. Small, full frame, mirrorless, and that Zeiss 35mm f2 Sonnar T lens was spectacular! My back up cameras at the time were Fuji aps-c. I loved the Sony RX1R, but after a few years got a bit tired of the fixed lens, so I sold it and got into the Fuji GFX 50R. This is the older 'rangefinder' style GFX. Fairly small, and with a grip is nice to handle. I got the Fuji GFX 50R and the Fuji GF 45mm f2.8 lens combo used for under $3,500. That lens (though not the best in the Fuji GF lineup) is very sharp. I'm looking to get the Fuji 23mm next, but man is it pricey, as are all the Fuji GF lenses. Since I was into Nikon full frame for so long, I also have a nice collection of Nikon legacy glass and I use those quite successfully on the 50R, though sometimes have to crop a wee bit due to vignetting as the lens doesn't completely cover the sensor-- still, they are plenty useful. I use a cheap Fotasy adapter that cost about $20.00 new. I also use my Nikon F mount Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro Planar with it and the images are stunning. My back up camera is a full frame Nikon Z series... and I have a couple of Nikon Z lenses, plus use my Nikon legacy glass with that camera, as well.
You're absolutely right... the Fuji GFX medium format cameras are a joy to use. I sold all of my aps-c sensor cameras and lenses years ago and will never go back to that size sensor. Full frame and medium format is where it's at, IMO. Once you've handled a Fuji GFX camera, the aps-c cameras feel like cheap, plastic toys. There are some drawbacks though with the GFX cameras, as you mentioned. I'd love to go to the Fuji 100S, but I would (seriously) need to buy a new computer. I have a decently spec'd older Mac, and it is slow to process the Fuji 50R RAW files (I can't imagine processing 100MP files with it). I mostly shoot landscapes, so the the slowness of the GFX system doesn't affect me... and really, it isn't all THAT slow unless you're shooting very fast action and need blazing fast FPS. Lastly, the Fuji GF lenses are damn expensive.
I'm writing this to let folks know about the early Fuji 50 GFX cameras... they can be had for relatively cheap on the used market. I love mine-- and for now, the 50MP is more than enough.
You can see the gradation of the Fuji is more subtle. Pretty identical for digital. Print detail and mainly post processing is where the differences will manifest.
*Got it right, but it's pretty obvious that the a6000 can't hold its highlights together. Bracketing or $10k 😂 High dynamic range is built-in some cameras like Nikon D-Lighting and Canon Auto Lighting Optimizer.
Your post review 👌🏾
I think you can use an SSD with the Fuji.
Now what you can't replace from the Fuji is it's color depth and workflow for high end client's. Imagine having to photograph for a museum, art collector, products such as an Omega or Rolex.
Finally, a complete assessment of the Fuji GFX for landscape that's practical...thank you!!! :)
In Latin America we have a proverb which says "It's not the arrow, it's the archer" and i think it summers it up pretty well.
With the A6000 having a much older sensor, it's impressive how close it comes to the Fuji image. With improvement in sensor tech, the APSC cameras would be a greater bang for the buck.
The right tool for each use, i have both x and gfx from fuji, and depending on what i want to do, i choose one, and i love them. For exemple for animals, nothing beats the xf 200mm f2 (or 280 f/2.8 with the 1.4x), while for portrait, the GF 110 is my heart choice.
Great video. I love both my Fujifilm xe3 and Nikon z6ii. They just have different strengths. I think I am gonna keep using these two systems for a long time.
Enjoyed the more “serious side” of you on this. I shoot both GFX 100 and X-Pro 3. Your comments are apt.
This was a very different episode. I liked it as much as your regular ones. This confirms that you can be entertaining even if you are more serious. It also confirms that you have a bright future: older, more grumpy, but still very entertaining!
Does that mean that from now on Gavin will be known as Brother Grumpy?
Great video - thank you. I have the 100s and agree with everything you say. It's not for everyone. I agonised over the 100s and the 50s mkii. What steered me to the 100 in the end was the dismal HD video on the 50s mkii-at these prices I want 4K (Fuji really saw me coming-I'm guessing that 4K nudge is by design). I actually really wanted a Leica SL2 as I have a Leica M and lenses, but I figured I couldn't afford any of the Leica L-mount lenses. And when I did comparisons of L-mount and GF-mount lenses - I found the GF appeared the same at half the price.
Most importantly, I want the 102mp for prints. The subtlety, range and colour I get are astounding when compared to files from my 5Dmkiii and my M9. Even when I use my vintage Leica lenses on the Fuji. Furthermore, I figure that as display technology improves, ultra high res digital displays will demand resolutions of 100mp and beyond. I want my stuff to look good on a very large 8K+ display. And as discussed in the video, being able to crop-in without losing any detail is really nice.
And yes-it's a joy to use and a joy to hold. My benchmarks are my Canon 5D mkiii and my Leica M9. The 100s sits somewhere between them in terms of UX and trumps them both in terms of ergonomics. To be fair the M9 literally does nothing except take photos.
I have to admit that I was disappointed by the 100s' speed. There's a slight delay between the pressing and the taking. It's not huge, but it's enough to annoy me. This is something I might have picked up if it weren't for the fact that I couldn't walk into a store during a lockdown. There's also no satisfying click or snap feel or sound-it's more of a disappointing thud.
Call me crazy (and I know many of you will), but I have no regrets. The 100s is fantastic.
it truly is and yeah, that missing 4K on the 50sII is a deliberate hobble the likes of Sony.
This is a really good comparison. I would have liked to have seen the difference between the GFX and the XT3/XT4, reason being that I suspect some of the colour science that Fuji employs would make the comparisons even harder to spot.
I could tell the difference because I was looking for what I would expect to see in the shadows of my own fuji.
Another interesting test would be to see what happens when the images are printed.
Really enjoyed that Gavin, I did guess the the correct image but that may have been fluke 🧐
What I did notice & is quite frankly a disgrace….is that you’ve only 70k subscribers !!!
Come on boys & girls, spread the word !! 😉
Ein toller Typ und sehr guter klassischer Fotograf, man kann noch etwas Lernen, danke für deine Mühe und das Aufzeichnen deiner auch lustigen Szenen, wenigsten mal ein Fotograf den man sein gesagtes glauben kann. Eine Traumlandschaften die er dort vorfinden kann. Er braucht die Motive nur Auflesen.
Something I want to point is there is some work arounds for things if you research or look into. One example is at 32:32 I want to point out with Lightroom's enhance feature and AI pixel enhancer, I was able to take a photo that was shot on my XT-3 and even cropped in, and blow it up to a 50 inch print. Was it some work to get it done, of course, but it's possible. I think you pointed it out perfectly in the video, if you have the knowledge and wit, you can probably get the same results with something cheaper. Even now, I'm trying to replicate the look of medium format film and that separation the Mamiyas produce with my XT-3. I'm using a canon FD F1.2 lens and the results have been beautiful with the creamy dreamy look it has.
love this video, I've ben using my a6500 for 4 years now, though wanting to buy a fullframe, but still lovr it.
I spent my career in photography and photo-reproduction / offset printing. The weakest link is the resolution (and color perception) of the human eye why a pattern of CYMK halftone dots with a 150 dot per inch screen ruling is acceptable at a viewing distance of 18 inches.
The rule of thumb I’ve always used for digital print equating pixels to print dimensions is pixels/300. But if you understand how to do up-sampling, USM and noise reduction it can be pushed higher. Just sharing photos electronically usually involves down-sampling of the images.
25:44 Wow - wth? I'm usually unimpressed by most shots (not yours ofc) but this one..wow. Very impressive! :) That's a masterpiece!
Great video. Love the dry Northern English (Oldham?) humour
Perhaps a key reason to buy the big Fuji (now 100Sii) is the inspiration it provides to take better photographs over smaller format cameras.
Great for Fine Art photographers who have the time and money to exploit the superb no compromise images it can produce.
I think your comparison tells the story that unless you want high end exhibition large prints a full frame camera competes very well and even APSC.
Web photographers do not need the hassle of storing and editing then downsizing a 100. M pixel file.
Subscribed!
Gavin, I like your funny videos but I really liked this video because it is very informative and it shows that you really do know photography.
Your comment on the 50 vs the 100 (pixel density) is exactly what I was thinking. I'm still shooting DSLR's and I 'm considering where to go next. Great video Gavin
Because of this episode, I am now a subscriber! Thanks… you just answered my dilemma. Dec ‘24 I went from A7r4 & A7S3. To Fuji XH2 and Xh2S. But been thinking about moving to GFX after watching your Lake Louise. And yes dump the XH2 for the GFX 50S2. Keep the XH2S. BTW reason I left SONY tired of f’n with the menu! I moved to Japan and can get great prices. Car analogy sold me! Thanks!
A camera is a data collection tool. It's sensible to collect as much data as accurately as possible. What you do afterwards is another issue. As such, higher resolution, wider dynamic range, less noise and better resolving optics with less aberrations are all worth it .... if you can afford it and carry any additional weight that comes with it. My 1.9mpx Coolpix images from 1999 look pretty crappy on an iMac. How will yours look in a few years on a 90" 8k or better TV ? It will come. Take photos with both today and the future in mind .....
I guess A is the Fuji . Let’s carry on watching the video. I was wrong and I have aSony A6000!
You’d be amazed what you can get for second hand camera gear at the moment! I regularly turn over camera bodies and lens if they are not in regular use….
Great job as always explaining the difference as well as pros and cons.
Great video. I used to sell cameras back in the film days, when the difference between cameras was pretty much just down to lens quality and features/build, as the “sensor” (film) could be the same in every comparable camera. With digital cameras, larger sensors of course have their benefits, especially in dynamic range and low light shooting, but lens quality is still one of the most important things for image quality.
What really holds smaller sensors back is that since they are targeted at entry level users, the manufacturer often does not create high quality pro lenses for them. Fuji is a notable exception, along with Olympus and Panasonic making some pro level lenses on their micro 4/3 cameras. As a matter of fact, with good light and shooting at base ISO, those smaller sensor cameras with pro lenses will rival much larger formats. As you mentioned in this video, higher quality lens on the APS-C camera would likely have closed this image quality gap even further.
People like to fight and argue online all the time about whether this camera system or that is “better”, but there is no one camera that will excel at everything. We humans have a tendency to devolve into brand loyalty and fanboyism, and honestly companies love to feed into that because it generates sales. But every camera system and format has pros and cons, and arguing about them online is pointless. Learning the pros and cons of the systems and choosing the correct system that meets your needs and/or wants is the only rational way to approach buying decisions, and in many people’s cases (especially non-pros), the smaller, cheaper systems are going to be the better choice.
Nanimo bars! Oops. I got distracted. Since I shoot with the Sony a6600, it’s always fun to see these kinds if videos. Thanks!
One thing that you have not mentioned is that every sensor and lens combination has its own unique aesthetic, and the Fuji medium format system is no exception. You either like it or you don’t, and if you do like it but can’t afford it, you can always rent one for a paying shoot. I have gone the other way, and have a couple of Fuji APS-C bodies and two collections of vintage glass - one consisting of razor sharp Nikon primes, the other is a carefully researched collection of possibly the worst lenses ever made, which yield incredible results impossible to achieve with a high end medium format system you so avidly describe. I guess it’s down to making the very best of what you already have, or is affordably available. In the end, a good picture doesn’t care what camera has recorded it.
Love the nerdiness of this vid!! And that the squirrel totally photobombed you at 12:50
My thinking is if a camera makes you enjoy your craft and it inspires you, then go with that. For me in particular, Nikon got me into photography, while Fuji made me a photographer.
This is a great comparison and really addresses when the key moment that a digital medium format camera would be worth it. Specifically, only if you regularly print very large. If you even print typical 8x10, 16x20 sizes, either option could work very well. Huge panoramas are where this camera would shine, and given the price you'd better be selling for a lot of $$$!
First time watching you. Great video andI love your presentation style! I think the last chapter about buying the best you can is the bottom line for anything. I'd rather have one great lens and camera, than mediocre kit. The moments captured will never happen again, you can't go back and do better. Every moment is once in a lifetime. Choose wisely.
Garvin, 'By Jingo' I knew you could assemble a serious equipment video with some cogent takeaways!! Well, almost, we'll pretend we didn't see the unicorn! Really great and honest review of the GFX series which I have drooling over since the Grumpton moved over from the D850. Forgot that he dusted it off for the wave action shots. Your reviews and some others convinced me to move from the D850 to the Z7 and new Z lens line, mostly to lighten the load, but now that I have a new set I am loving the EVF, new controls, and the fabulous lens line-up of 2.8 zooms. I would still love to have the GFS features of the full-color histogram, incorporated intervalometer, and the vertical format adjusting screen, but I saved $3500 to make a pilgrimage to favorite out yonder destinations as per your recommendations. In all seriousness....even though we didn't hear from Amanda, really great review,!!! Cheers!
Nikon Z6 and HP Z3200 user. I prefer to save all those excess MF dollars and spend them on diesel for my Sprinter to take me to distant, photogenic locations.
That said, I envy the articulated VF on the Fuji.
Hi Gavin. After all this analyzing and philosophizing (on your part, not mine) I think we agree on the main point: when it comes to expensive things, the buying decision is purely sentimental. We buy what we like, not what we need. Looking forward to your next video. This was a bit too serious for me.
Hi Gavin, it was nice to see the difference (or not) between the 2 cameras. I think undoubtedly if your a pro then the Fuji is definitely worth the investment, but if not even if you do print your images the only person who is going to know is you. If family/friends who are not photographers walk in and see your picture on the wall they aren't going to walk up to it and A) pixel peep and B) say hmmm, images quality's not so sharp on that is it....lost a bit of detail in those shadows...
I'd be more than happy to print that Sony image and hang it on the wall, nice shot that Gavin...
This might sound weird, but I was kind of torn apart whether to get Sony A7iii or A7iv, but after watching this video there is no contest anymore and it will be A7iii with the extra cash going for lenses and accessories. What we see in the video is not that surprising or groundbreaking, but sometimes you need to see something like this to take you back to your senses.
This was a great and very interesting video. Thank you.
I'm very happy with my GFX 50r. It's quite a bit lighter (like 20%) and I've paid like total of 3500€ with a lens. Yeah, it might not have all the bells and whistles of 100s and "only" 50 megapixels (which makes them indeed more enjoyable to process than 100 megapixel ones) .. it strikes a great balance for those landscape shots.
The 100 megapixel camera will have more visible noise than the 50 if you’re zooming in to 100%, but that’s because it’s double the size. When you scale them both to the same size, the noise gets compressed down and the low light performance is the same or better. It also gives you more headroom for noise reduction while still getting more detail.
I almost did not watch this episode. However, I was curious about what you would say. I should have expected what you did, an excellent presentation. This should be helpful for many. Thanks for sharing. Happy I watched.
Out of all the channels this is easily the best. Keep er lit Gav. Great compositions. Love from Dublin
That is the main reason why I go with full frame camera since it is well balanced in terms of price and image quality.
Thanks for a more “nerdy” video. I do enjoy your entertainment/comedy videos, but appreciate this more informative detail from your channel.
Love the 'Nerdy' video style, Gavin!
To me if your not going to enlarge files to very large prints, you don't need the fuji. A 100 mega pixel file to enlarge wall size prints yes you need the fuji, for instantagram stuff use the sony. Gavin thanks for this technical video today w/o the silliness , it was refreshing.
Sony A7r IV doesnt have 16 bit raw files but 14. light room isnt fast with gfx files, capture one is faster.
Smart decision. I never thought it was really worth the extra cash. I'm also not a big believer in having to keep getting better gear. I still shoot with two SLR bodies and I'm good with that.
Amazing video, I like the thoroughness of it all.
I'm on a crop fuji body and have thought of going FF sony but those menus, I just can't do it for the difference.
A UK photographer James Popsys I think his name is. Shot a photo with his Sony R and a Amazon £30 camera.. On UA-cam I had a job to tell the difference on my phone! He edits his colours in a way they are a little flat, which helped the Amazon camera. Reason I say, this is a similar example.. It's all about the person behind the camera.
That Fuji color too, so pretty. One downside though beyond cost is the size of that beast, and the limited reach and shallow depth of field from that huge sensor. But the dividends are quite stunning, and it helps when you have a real pro behind it.
I think you made a very good case for getting the Fuji and maybe two lenses for those niche cases where it would excel.
Interesting video Gavin, it would be interesting to see to same comparison against a newer mirrorless full frame or similar DLSR
The A7R IV is a really great compromise.
It is - to my hands - just large enough to be quite comfortable to hold longer than one would in landscape work (the A6xxx are unacceptably small) and thus not any larger than it needs to be.
Files are not small, but still well manageable.
Lens options - which is one of the most important factors to decide on - are much better. Starting at the wide end with either of the excellent 12-24 GM or 16-35 GM, only two more lenses of which there are very good ones, take you all the way to 400mm.
It would be great if Fuji pushed forward in that regard like Sony did, but I doubt they will as much, its a smaller market and they have to split their lens development resources between their APS-C and medium format lineup, where Sony can concentrate their efforts (when it comes to high end lenses) to the full-frame compatible ones thanks to the single mount.
Given the rather short focal length range of the available zoom lenses (which sure helps to make them that good optically), even if Fuji added options on both the wide and long end, you'd still end up with at least 4, more likely 5 big lenses in your bag instead of 3 medium ones to cover a similar total range.
Heck, I went with the A7R IV instead of Canon R5, among other reasons, for the complete kit being about 1 kg lighter while having the better ultra wide lens.
The 50 MP GFX cameras, however, would be by far the worst choice in my book - you combine big size and high cost for that resolution with the depth of field disadvantage (for landscape etc.) and limited lens selection. It only makes sense to studio portrait shooters and such that strive for the shallow depth of field and still like good resolution.
@fototripper I live in Denmark and here is absolutely nothing worth wasting pixels on, but I don't think I could go through life if I lived in Canada without owning a medium format!!🙄 Not only cuz of the resolution and more light/dynamic and brilliant optics, but also the color tonality. So I think the answer is more than obvious to a guy like you😊 Never the less I just ordered a GFX50II + the 63 mm just for kicks😋 and no, it is not overkill by any means considering the fairly cheap price. I don't understand some people that say that. It's the same people that in the past said jpeg and h264/5 is good enough for native shoot. Sure, instant coffee can also be good enough🤮🤮 Why would anyone not always aim for the best possible visuals + quality!? Also for future proofing ones work/hobby. - Btw you can get the gfx100 used or demo for around 2750 USD at Goecker in Denmark witch is a highly professional shop. And with two years warranty. I assume there is simular shops in Canada that sell around same price.
If I was Fuji representative, I would supply Gavin with Fuji products 'til his last day for free for such positive commercial review!
Glad that you informed us that higher magapixel cameras will slow down our computers. I upgradef from a APCS to a full frame 3 years ago and very soon after that I had to do the same with the computer. It's probably close to the cost of a normal car to move to the Fuji, if you factor in all the other equipment you need to upgrade/buy.
a macmini M1 performs remarkably well, using capture one. if you use Adobes crappy software- that’s on you! i use it daily for 50 moix gfx files, and tested it using 102 mpix - where it slowed a bit - but not enough to matter
@@mortenthorpe Sure. But I don't use Mac or capture one, so I just doubled the ram and everything was fine. And also, I came from 16 mpix to 25 mpix, but enought to slow things down.
@@seseikkailija5373 Yeah, stay away from the cult of Mac
I favour a mid-range full-frame camera that's 1 or 2 generations old - my Nikon Z6 was only £900 used, and it rocks!
So underrated. Keep it up big man. Enjoying the home improvement stuff too.
Gavin I look forward to your vlogs, they make me laugh. I enjoyed you taking us on a tour with the Fuji GFX 100S. Maybe Fuji is watching and they will let you knees the camera. I wouldn’t hold my breath but you never know. Everyone from the F4 Road-trip would be Fuji shooters except for Nick then.
30:40... thats pretty much true.
I began with a EOS 400D Kit. It wasnt a good camera from the beginning, but it was "ok". I had my fun with it and got a bit into photography. But i found out very fast.... photography is a SUPER EXPENSIVE HOBBY.
Later i upgraded it with some 2nd hand EF lenses, some lenses were awesome (like a Sigma 100mm Macro Lens or a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM which im still using) and i enjoyed them, but many were "trash" (EF 50mm 1.4, EF 75-300 IS USM, EF 300 F4 L,...) and literally made me quit photography for some years since i could not and didnt wanted to afford the better EF glasses.
Also my DSLR began to get older than it was already as i bought it fked up 2nd hand (550D for 60€!), took me months to realize the AF sensors are misaligned and thats why literally 99% of the images were out of focus (or at least not perfectly focussed)... besides not really good or fitting lenses for the usecases!
Since i got after many years finally a "super expensive" lens (800€ 2nd hand, RF 800 F11, literally the CHEAPEST POSSIBLE Supertele for RF mount) to my EOS RP (which is also a charme compared to old DSLRs) its so much more enjoyable to go out, because normally i was going out and with MUCH LUCK i came home with at best 1 or 2 usable images, normally i would have been better off by just using the smartphone since its image would have been better (!!!!!!) or not even trying to take any pictures at all
I really enjoyed this video, especially the bit where you talk about the joy of working with the best tools you can afford to get the best possible results. Good reasoning for and against the Fuji. Until I win the lottery, I will stay with my Canon 5D IV though.
Good camera that.
What's up Gavin? I like the comparison of the two cameras. I personally think it's all in the glass quality at the in of the day. Peace, my friend!
Crop aps-c vs Crop medium format.
The thing is though, when your zooming in to 250% the crop photo will be falling apart. I have my monitor setup so when I'm looking at a print size preview, the photo will enlarge by 50% and here you are zooming in 5 times more than that. You have to ask yourself how much you or your client wants to crop an image and how big you want to print your image and how fussy you are with retaining fine details, examining the print close up.
Most people will not print regularly larger than A3 or A2 so the crop camera will do the job just fine. I'm guessing that at least half the people that buy the crop medium format Fuji want the pleasure of zooming in 200%-400% on the their hi-res monitors and try to justify why they "need" the (slightly) better resolution than what a full frame camera can offer.
Another angle I always consider before "upgrading" is "Will it help make me more money than what I'm using now?" The answer is usually "No" and I happily save myself a ton of cash. There are many pros out there using Canon 5DMKIVs, Nikon D850s and other older camera systems and their work is stellar as is their bank accounts. I 100% agree that if you are just rolling in the money, go for it - we'd all drive a Ferrari if we could.