I just bought it and it seems like a perfect camera for me. I mainly shoot on Pentax67, film camera so getting portraits on this will be a great new experience. From what I see AF is not a problem as I am really already, a slowed down medium format photographer :) great video - thank you!
The key with the medium format photography is 'deliberate'. I have done many outdoor portrait sessions, church events and even music events with the GFX-50s and got good results. If you rely on continuous shoot habitually, you are out of luck getting anything good out of the GFX.
Fascinating! I think Fuji is being very smart in their niche and price strategy with the cameras they produce! High end APSC on the one end and the most affordable medium format on the other!
I have this. finally. took me about a month to get used to it. after being initially disappointed, It's spectacular. i was disappointed because I do have a big sensor hasseblad, and this 44mm is.. puny compered to the big boy. but the hasselblad has a ccd sensor so it's a house/studio cat mostly since it can't shoot over iso 200 or so. The way this camera pulls highlights is unparalleled, reminds me of the old D800E from nikon. The lenses are exquisite, fujion makes the H sytem hasselblad lenses btw.So as an added bonus I've adapted them to the gfx and i can use that very special leaf shutter . I was expecting it to deliver as a portrait/landscape camera, and it does and then some, but in my opinion this is the best street camera on the market.
Thanks for these Dustin, your approach is so helpful and constructive - a methodical walk-through, allowing the viewer to see what you're seeing/finding for themselves and make an informed and contextually-astute decision.
Great review again, Dustin. We’ve had most GFX cameras over for extended trails, but they’ve never been able to replace my H6D. Though in resolution the GFX100(S) is closest, in pure image quality and flexibility it still lacks a bit. In itself that’s a pretty good achievement considering the difference in price. The magenta color cast in shadow tones is notorious for almost all Fujifilm cameras (incl. the X-line). It gets a bit better when you set the GFX100 to 16bit color definition. For the GFX50 models that’s unfortunately not an option. The AF performance you noted around 8:00 seems odd. The GFX50SMkII isn’t the best by any standard, but this is bordering useless. In our studio it was slow and often needed some help, but not that slow… There are some AF-C settings that might improve the behavior under specific circumstances, but it will never be very good, let alone great. As a general purpose snapshot camera the 50SII will probably be better than the X1DII, but for landscape, portraits and studio work I’d much prefer the X1DII. It has a more consistent build quality (incl. the lenses), it supports 16bit raw and the leaf shutter allows for high sync speeds. It might be an almost 9 (!) year old sensor, but Hasselblad makes it truly shine. Whenever you carefully assess textures of skin and fabrics, there’s a clear, visible advantage for the X1DII. The AF-C performance of the X1D is even worse than the Fuji though. In my experience, for most people a high-res full-frame camera is a better and more flexible option. Vastly better AF, more lens options, more compact (esp. the lenses) and less costly. Whenever you still want medium format, the GFX100S is probably the better choice, since there you still have the IQ advantage of MF over full-frame.
I agree that the GFX100S is probably the sweet spot, mostly because I think it distinguishes itself more from full frame competitors in its optical performance. And while the AF performance still isn't great in an absolute sense, it is probably as good as you're going to find in the medium format space right now.
Do people with experience in using e.g. a Hasselblad H6D (and its bigger sensor) consider 44x33 mm medium format? To my knowledge Fuji does not call it that. Compared to 36x24mm it is certainly a huge step up and considering the price it is surely a great format. But to me personally it is not medium format. I assume that a H6D or a PhaseOne create even more medium format style images than the GFX or the X1D and X2D.
@@klausmoritzpeitzsch690 there are multiple aspects to a camera. Where the H6D and the iQ4 are definitely a step up in image quality compared to even a GFX100(S), the latter is much easier as a walk-around camera, has better AF and IBIS and is certainly much less expensive. Sensor size is an important factor, but it’s not the only factor. Though the X2D has a smaller sensor than the H6D, the first results I saw, look very promissing. This is so close to if not better than the H6D… Large part of that is probably due to the newer lenses. The HC lenses are of an older design and though still terrific, the newly designed lenses of the H2D seem slightly better. I have to do some more tests but I’m very impressed by the X2D so far. This is a big step up from the X1D and even from the GFX100 in terms of IQ. Somehow Hasselblad can perform magic with this Sony sensor. Whether it’s individual calibration, Hasselblad color science or something else…?
Another great in-depth review/presentation. You hit the nail right at the head that it’s not a medium format camera for everyone. You are absolutely correct that the 50S II’s price point allows it to serve as the gateway to medium format, but the highly handicapped contrast detection auto focus system described by others and reinforced by you may stop me cold to jump in? But the current promotion in Canada for the 50S II c/w the 35-70mm kit less for CAD5,624 less $600 bonus allowance if you have a camera to trade-in is a real temptation?
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for taking the time to respond to me. My intention is to acquire the 50S II w/GF 50mm f3.5 (not the 35-70mm kit lens) and then make use of the “Kipon” auto focus adapter with my Canon EF primes. I am having difficulties to decide if I should go for it? I have the funding but I don’t want to buy a newer body at later date because of the less than desirable contrast auto focus system. I am 68, and it is not a mechanical Leica film camera which never loose its value.
Yes, the A1 seemed clearer and sharper, more hi res, for me too. As a newbie 50sii owner this stung a bit! Dustin, may I ask, what file format/treatments/sharpening - if any - was applied to the two images?
Hey Dustin, as someone ready to purchase a GFX for landscape, starscape and night life photography in Japan, I would really appreciate some insight on something I have noticed but seen none talking about. On the Photons to Photons site, the Older GFX 50s and 50r, though lower in dynamic range at base iso than both the GFX 100s and 100 by about 1 stop and just a tiny bit compared to the 50sii, both seem to have virtually no reduction from ISO 1273 - 12800 hovering around 8.5 stops, as where the 50s ii and both the 100 and 100s drop off in a linear fasion from ISO 100 all the way to ISO 10,000 on the 50sii and 12,800 on the 100s before leveling off at about 5.5 to 6 stops of Dynamic range. Is this possibly due to a dual native ISO's which kick in lower on the earlier models? Personally, downloading raw files to work with it did seem that the GFX 50R and 50S not only were more easy to pull shadows from at ISO 12,800, but also in my software (darktable) the profiled noise reduction worked nearly flawlessly simply by turning it on, where as the 50s ii and 100s though still beautiful images retained more noise which I had to work on, and definitely seemed to retain less info in the shadows. However it was very hard to find higher ISO files to work from from the later two models, so I did not feel it was a definitive test. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.
That's interesting, and I don't have a definitive answer for you. I haven't tested the older bodies. I will say that high resolution cameras are better served being used at lower ISOs, though obviously these cameras have improved a lot in that regard.
Autofocus isn't a critical thing on a medium format camera as most will use it for mostly still subjects. Look somewhere else for sports/action/ or wildlife
That might be a bit of an overstatement (I think quality autofocus is important regardless of the system), but you're absolutely right that you have to pick the right tool for the job.
I plan to use adapted Zeiss ZE lenses. How does this compare to the canon R5 or Leica SL2 in terms of sharpness and color rendering? Anyone? I’ve sort of had a Jones for the Hasselblad x1d2, but without image stabilization, I don’t feel it’s as good as this Fuji.
Hey mate, I always love your videos and yes I'm a subscriber I'm thinking about buying this camera I currently own the 850 and everyone says to me Neville why do you need to sell your 850 I own a Fujifilm XT5 as well yeah I like the high megapixel stuff. I don't care what people say more megapixels mean sharp images a lot of the time when you print big and I'm talking big prints ..... The price of this camera has come down a lot, and now it's affordable. I think I should pull the trigger and just go with Fuji. I was thinking of pairing my XT5 with my GFX 50 S2 that I would purchase and I reckon that would make an awesome combination.
Love your indepth reviews. Can we expect one for the gf110mm in the near future by any chance? Still on the fence between the GF 110mm and 80mm on a gfx100/100s system
Hello Dustin. What do you think about GF lenses IQ overall ? Does it make sense to switch to GFX from a FF system to get better IQ ? ( Maybe there is no much difference with high Mpix FF cameras ? ) Thanks
There are pros and cons, but, for me, the sweet spot remains full frame. There are so many more lens choices, the lenses are more compact, and they are more likely to have larger maximum apertures which allows you to shoot in a wider variety of lighting conditions. I'm testing the 20-35mm F4 (a very nice lens), but that maximum aperture of F4 means that there are many situations where I've got to have the ISO higher, and even by ISO 3200 the GFX100S I'm testing it on gets pretty noisy.
Thanks for the reply Dustin. EFCS setting on the 50SII should have at least got the playing field close between the lenses (assuming the A1 was using electronic shutter). The mediocre test result of the GF110 shocks me, sample variation hopefully. That also makes me want to take a look at the Sigma for my A1 if the AF is not compromised at that performance level.
For now the drawbacks from medium format (speed, price, autofoucs, size and weight) just can't validate the tiniest image quality gain over full frame. But who knows, maybe one day medium format will be like full frame today, because full frame was considered "not worth it" over APS-C.
If you saw these images for your self on 4K you might think differently, I have the 100s and it is jaw droppingly leaving full frame out to dry, gfx is sopping with realism.
it's not tiny at all. the tonal contrast of medium format sensors is mind-blowing. not to mention the joy of shooting 60mm fov with a 85mm lens. or shooting 16mm fov with a 28mm on a hassy. it gives you a different experience. Full frame is not in the same league.
I don't possess Fujifilm, but whenever I opt for seeing any camera. be it full frame of other ways Fujifilm comes first. I am curious to know why is it so.
These techno reviews never hit the spot in my opinion The proof of the camera is always in the photos and not enough here to prove much. I've seen reviews with photographs which could sell the camera to me
None - but Fuji can't have it both ways. They want to market their MF as being a superior alternative to full frame (and price them accordingly). Being realistic about the focus limitations is important for those who might be considering the swap.
Good review. One of the best on this camera. I will get one after a get an used D850 for my Nikon F system. Been updating it during the last 2 years after my D300 broke down so today I have a used D700 .I think I need to update a AF300mm IF-ED screw driver AF lens to a used 400F2.8 as well when I can affor it. I will not transfere to the Nikon Z and S lenses becouse it to expensive to do that and if you not into Video there is no upside to it. I have the Fuji X-Pro 1 and X-T1 with bulk zooms and If I in the futhure need video its cheaper to update one of thoose. I made a misstake 13 years ago when I switch to digital and sold of all my lenses and I stil have not repared my economic buffer after that. I would prefere a better autofocus but the main reason is to use adaters so I can use my old HB 503 CW and Mamiya 7ii lenses. I will get the bulk normal Zoom also. The 100s is out of what I'm willing to pay for a camera unless I get some free money..
It’s pretty tough to love this or the Hasselblad X1D-II any more these days, given the 8-year old Sony sensor. Of the two, I prefer the X1D-II given the XCD lenses produce more appealing images to my eye, and Hasselblad’s color calibration (every camera body and XCD lens is individually calibrated) means you’ll never have to deal with correcting color casts such as you found in your test of these two cameras. I don’t see any appeal to the Fuji with the Sony 100 MP sensor of this size. Better off buying a used H5-100 or H6-100. Unless either or both of these companies is working with Sony to add a 60 or 80 MP sensor of this size having truly competitive autofocus, all that beautiful glass seems hung out to dry with no camera roadmap that makes sense.
Wait, I'm confused, on the comparison of image quality against the Sony A1 the Fujifilm is at ISO 100 comparing the Sony up to ISO 6.400, is that fair or useful to the user?
@@dmacrolens what I meant is that the Fujifilm GFX 50S was at ISO 100 for the ISO comparison and the A1 was compared at ISO 100, 800, 3200, 6400. How is ISO 100 on Medium Format VS. ISO 6.400 on 35mm FF useful to a user?
Wow the A1 and sigma combo out-resolved the medium format, frankly there's little incentive to shoot medium format unless you shoot with their latest sensor, this old 50mp sensor shows its age.
This camera should not exist, in my mind. If you are ok with the old sensor, get a GFX50r or 50s used for about half what this GFX50sII costs new. You're getting the same output of this seven year old sensor and basically the same (non-)performance in terms of AF. You lose stabilisation but if you're shooting handheld and need IBIS, chances are that you also need a usable AF. In that case get the 100 or 100s.
Yes I’ve bought a gfx50r for half the price with 800 shutter count and I bought a used mint gfx45-100mm with ois !! And I’m getting excellent images for what I saved nearly 2k and bought a lens with it
@@DustinAbbottTWI Same here, I got the 100 used at my local camera store for less than the 100S retail price. The camera I really want though would be a GFX100R with dedicated dials, compact form factor AND the new sensor. ... Fingers crossed. ;)
Rubbish. How do you know all this if you don’t own the camera? I own it… the sensor, hence the image quality is outstanding. The ergonomics and usability are fantastic. The IBIS is a game changer, seriously I shoot often at 1/4 sec… and to say you need usable AF if you need IBIS 😂 The AF is quick, I only use single point AFS and would never use face detect for a wedding or for documentary work anyway. In this mode it’s rapid and focusing in low light (16th sec/f4.5/iso 12800) it’s fine. And it’s £2,000 less than the 100s and the body is now only around £500/£600 more than the original 50s. I’ve owned lots of cameras in my career, this is the best I’ve ever owned.
As a retired professional photographer, I'm always a bit baffled if it comes to stuff, an amateur in nearly all cases, doesn't need. As I was used to Hasselblad, Mamiya, Sinar (view camera's), I now use a Samsung NX20 (bought it for 135 euro's). I had several shots blown up to poster format, which gave enormous detailed results. Further, most of my present photo's, end up on internet. In which I'm sure, this camera will not give more superior results in those cases. When I started about 55 years ago, I soon learned, it's the photographer, not the camera! Enjoy throwing your money away!
This is the age old debate, and, while it is true that the photographer himself is the most important ingredient, the simple fact remains that certain gear enables one to do things that lesser gear does not. My two main cameras allow me to shoot at 20FPS and 30FPS respectively while having full time tracking capabilities. That enables me to get certain shots that would be near impossible with lesser gear.
@@POVwithRC Bull shit, a camera is not a racing car. In fact a view camera is completely manual, and gives better results than any other camera.That's is if you are killed. I walked weeks with a Mamiya RZ through the Egyptian deserts, even riding with the stuff on Camels and Horses. Some months later a went with my wife on vacation there, with your type 35 mm Ferarri, you should see the difference!
@@POVwithRC I had many assignments in the Egyptian desert. Traveling with just Mamiya RZ gear, also riding horses and camels No auto focus, not even a light meter, which btw I never use. Few months later, I went for a vacation there with my wife, and I took only a 35mm Ferarri with me. You should see the difference. Maybe that's why I earned 300 K years 30 years ago!
I'm not impressed by the image quality at all, given the fact that the sensor is much bigger and the price and size of Fuji G lenses. It's only visibly better in terms of shadow recovery and in other areas it's slightly worse than Sony FF. When we add all the compromises with AF, it does not sound like a bargain anymore, especially considering the fact that you can get similar image quality on some affordable FF bodies such as Sony A7R III (and maybe even A7R II) at a much lower price point and still be better in terms of AF. GFX 100S looks like a much better value to me, since that camera gives a substantial increase in image quality compared to FF.
That’s what I took from the review as well.. The fact that the A1 looked sharper to me killed any slight interest I had in Fuji’s 50mp MF bodies. I’ve always know that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is Art is razor sharp but I didn’t expect it to beat a MF lens at equal resolution at all. Low light performance is stellar but very moot if the AF lets you down. I also think the loss of dedicated dials for a top screen is both an aesthetic and functional mistake.
@@joe2snj One additional thought regarding low light performance is that in real-life scenarios, FF users would almost never use the same ISO value as MF, simply because of the fact that FF lenses are much faster than MF lenses. So Sony users with 85mm F/1.4 can shoot at half the ISO as Fuji GFX users with 110mm F2. So in a real-life scenario, I wouldn't be surprised that Sony's end result will be cleaner than GFX 50S II.
I agree that the GFX100S is probably the sweet spot, mostly because I think it distinguishes itself more from full frame competitors in its optical performance.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
This video is sponsored by Ekster. Visit shop.ekster.com/dustin-abbott for a special discount.
One of the best overviews yet. No time wasting, just straight down to business.
Thank you
I just bought it and it seems like a perfect camera for me. I mainly shoot on Pentax67, film camera so getting portraits on this will be a great new experience. From what I see AF is not a problem as I am really already, a slowed down medium format photographer :) great video - thank you!
You're the perfect candidate for this kind of camera.
The key with the medium format photography is 'deliberate'. I have done many outdoor portrait sessions, church events and even music events with the GFX-50s and got good results.
If you rely on continuous shoot habitually, you are out of luck getting anything good out of the GFX.
Exactly. Deliberate is the word that I emphasize as well.
Fascinating! I think Fuji is being very smart in their niche and price strategy with the cameras they produce! High end APSC on the one end and the most affordable medium format on the other!
I agree. I'd be interested in knowing what their actual volume is. They do continue to develop in this space, so obviously there is a market.
I have this. finally. took me about a month to get used to it.
after being initially disappointed, It's spectacular.
i was disappointed because I do have a big sensor hasseblad, and this 44mm is.. puny compered to the big boy. but the hasselblad has a ccd sensor so it's a house/studio cat mostly since it can't shoot over iso 200 or so.
The way this camera pulls highlights is unparalleled, reminds me of the old D800E from nikon. The lenses are exquisite, fujion makes the H sytem hasselblad lenses btw.So as an added bonus I've adapted them to the gfx and i can use that very special leaf shutter .
I was expecting it to deliver as a portrait/landscape camera, and it does and then some, but in my opinion this is the best street camera on the market.
It's the tradeoffs for sure. Getting a more conventional camera is probably worth the slightly smaller sensor.
Thanks for these Dustin, your approach is so helpful and constructive - a methodical walk-through, allowing the viewer to see what you're seeing/finding for themselves and make an informed and contextually-astute decision.
That's very gratifying feedback, as that basically perfectly describes what I'm trying to accomplish.
Great review again, Dustin. We’ve had most GFX cameras over for extended trails, but they’ve never been able to replace my H6D. Though in resolution the GFX100(S) is closest, in pure image quality and flexibility it still lacks a bit. In itself that’s a pretty good achievement considering the difference in price. The magenta color cast in shadow tones is notorious for almost all Fujifilm cameras (incl. the X-line). It gets a bit better when you set the GFX100 to 16bit color definition. For the GFX50 models that’s unfortunately not an option.
The AF performance you noted around 8:00 seems odd. The GFX50SMkII isn’t the best by any standard, but this is bordering useless. In our studio it was slow and often needed some help, but not that slow… There are some AF-C settings that might improve the behavior under specific circumstances, but it will never be very good, let alone great.
As a general purpose snapshot camera the 50SII will probably be better than the X1DII, but for landscape, portraits and studio work I’d much prefer the X1DII. It has a more consistent build quality (incl. the lenses), it supports 16bit raw and the leaf shutter allows for high sync speeds. It might be an almost 9 (!) year old sensor, but Hasselblad makes it truly shine. Whenever you carefully assess textures of skin and fabrics, there’s a clear, visible advantage for the X1DII. The AF-C performance of the X1D is even worse than the Fuji though.
In my experience, for most people a high-res full-frame camera is a better and more flexible option. Vastly better AF, more lens options, more compact (esp. the lenses) and less costly. Whenever you still want medium format, the GFX100S is probably the better choice, since there you still have the IQ advantage of MF over full-frame.
I agree that the GFX100S is probably the sweet spot, mostly because I think it distinguishes itself more from full frame competitors in its optical performance. And while the AF performance still isn't great in an absolute sense, it is probably as good as you're going to find in the medium format space right now.
Do people with experience in using e.g. a Hasselblad H6D (and its bigger sensor) consider 44x33 mm medium format? To my knowledge Fuji does not call it that.
Compared to 36x24mm it is certainly a huge step up and considering the price it is surely a great format. But to me personally it is not medium format.
I assume that a H6D or a PhaseOne create even more medium format style images than the GFX or the X1D and X2D.
@@klausmoritzpeitzsch690 there are multiple aspects to a camera. Where the H6D and the iQ4 are definitely a step up in image quality compared to even a GFX100(S), the latter is much easier as a walk-around camera, has better AF and IBIS and is certainly much less expensive.
Sensor size is an important factor, but it’s not the only factor. Though the X2D has a smaller sensor than the H6D, the first results I saw, look very promissing. This is so close to if not better than the H6D… Large part of that is probably due to the newer lenses. The HC lenses are of an older design and though still terrific, the newly designed lenses of the H2D seem slightly better.
I have to do some more tests but I’m very impressed by the X2D so far. This is a big step up from the X1D and even from the GFX100 in terms of IQ. Somehow Hasselblad can perform magic with this Sony sensor. Whether it’s individual calibration, Hasselblad color science or something else…?
Always a pleasure to watch your detailed and fair reviews 👍
Glad you like them!
Great Review Dustin. Thanks for taking the time to this thorough review. God Bless!
Another great in-depth review/presentation. You hit the nail right at the head that it’s not a medium format camera for everyone. You are absolutely correct that the 50S II’s price point allows it to serve as the gateway to medium format, but the highly handicapped contrast detection auto focus system described by others and reinforced by you may stop me cold to jump in? But the current promotion in Canada for the 50S II c/w the 35-70mm kit less for CAD5,624 less $600 bonus allowance if you have a camera to trade-in is a real temptation?
I suspect you know if medium format might or might not be for you, and, if so, that sounds like a solid value as a price of entry.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for taking the time to respond to me. My intention is to acquire the 50S II w/GF 50mm f3.5 (not the 35-70mm kit lens) and then make use of the “Kipon” auto focus adapter with my Canon EF primes. I am having difficulties to decide if I should go for it? I have the funding but I don’t want to buy a newer body at later date because of the less than desirable contrast auto focus system. I am 68, and it is not a mechanical Leica film camera which never loose its value.
You don't get more views because you're too objective and you're not a salesman. I appreciate what you do.
You're probably right...and that's kind of sad.
@@DustinAbbottTWI it makes you more of a professional and less of a salesman like most of the other youtube channels.
Excellent review as always. Really awkward that images from A1 are much sharper than those from the Fuji.
LOL - that is a bit awkward.
Digital sharpening
I Think the GFX file is a bit blurred, look at the higher ISO images ...
Yes, the A1 seemed clearer and sharper, more hi res, for me too. As a newbie 50sii owner this stung a bit! Dustin, may I ask, what file format/treatments/sharpening - if any - was applied to the two images?
So, after reviewing all these cameras, what is it that YOU choose to shoot with? The Sony Alpha 1?
That Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 DG DN strikes again. Very surprised to see it beat the Fuji.
As always great and informative content 👌
That is a very sharp lens, for sure.
he does shoot both on 5.6 which isn't really apples to apples, F7.1 is 5.6 for the fuji.
Hey Dustin, as someone ready to purchase a GFX for landscape, starscape and night life photography in Japan, I would really appreciate some insight on something I have noticed but seen none talking about. On the Photons to Photons site, the Older GFX 50s and 50r, though lower in dynamic range at base iso than both the GFX 100s and 100 by about 1 stop and just a tiny bit compared to the 50sii, both seem to have virtually no reduction from ISO 1273 - 12800 hovering around 8.5 stops, as where the 50s ii and both the 100 and 100s drop off in a linear fasion from ISO 100 all the way to ISO 10,000 on the 50sii and 12,800 on the 100s before leveling off at about 5.5 to 6 stops of Dynamic range. Is this possibly due to a dual native ISO's which kick in lower on the earlier models? Personally, downloading raw files to work with it did seem that the GFX 50R and 50S not only were more easy to pull shadows from at ISO 12,800, but also in my software (darktable) the profiled noise reduction worked nearly flawlessly simply by turning it on, where as the 50s ii and 100s though still beautiful images retained more noise which I had to work on, and definitely seemed to retain less info in the shadows. However it was very hard to find higher ISO files to work from from the later two models, so I did not feel it was a definitive test. Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated.
That's interesting, and I don't have a definitive answer for you. I haven't tested the older bodies. I will say that high resolution cameras are better served being used at lower ISOs, though obviously these cameras have improved a lot in that regard.
Great overview Dustin, putting my order in for a used on very soon.
Enjoy!
The sensor performance is quite impressive if one is careful with over exposure.
Exactly.
Autofocus isn't a critical thing on a medium format camera as most will use it for mostly still subjects. Look somewhere else for sports/action/ or wildlife
That might be a bit of an overstatement (I think quality autofocus is important regardless of the system), but you're absolutely right that you have to pick the right tool for the job.
I plan to use adapted Zeiss ZE lenses. How does this compare to the canon R5 or Leica SL2 in terms of sharpness and color rendering? Anyone?
I’ve sort of had a Jones for the Hasselblad x1d2, but without image stabilization, I don’t feel it’s as good as this Fuji.
Hey mate, I always love your videos and yes I'm a subscriber I'm thinking about buying this camera I currently own the 850 and everyone says to me Neville why do you need to sell your 850 I own a Fujifilm XT5 as well yeah I like the high megapixel stuff. I don't care what people say more megapixels mean sharp images a lot of the time when you print big and I'm talking big prints ..... The price of this camera has come down a lot, and now it's affordable. I think I should pull the trigger and just go with Fuji. I was thinking of pairing my XT5 with my GFX 50 S2 that I would purchase and I reckon that would make an awesome combination.
Sounds like fun to me.
Love your indepth reviews. Can we expect one for the gf110mm in the near future by any chance? Still on the fence between the GF 110mm and 80mm on a gfx100/100s system
I will be running a review of the 110mm next week.
Thanks for this review, assuming I don't care about fast AF (nature, fast) ... R5 vs this one... IQ - what do you think ?
I would give the moderate win on IQ to the Fuji, though the Canon is the much more complete camera.
Nice video! Could you tell me which tripod you are using? (The small one) 🙏
Sure: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Which should I choose between GFX50SII and A7RV?
I usually shoot people, group activities, and landscapes.
I personally would lean towards the a7RV if you need to do anything with demanding autofocus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ok i know! thank you so much.
Hallo Dustin ! I can use manual aperture ring and change it with a dials, but automatically is kinda impossible i dont get it 🤔🤔🤔🤔???
The camera can control aperture in certain modes.
@@DustinAbbottTWI When i press shot Button aperture ring changes automatically only in P mode .......
I wondered which of the AF options performed more/less encouragingly in the exercises, was there much of a difference between them?
I only had two lenses on hand during this review - the 35-70mm and 110mm F2. Of the two I felt the 35-70 focused a little faster and quieter
Hello Dustin. What do you think about GF lenses IQ overall ? Does it make sense to switch to GFX from a FF system to get better IQ ? ( Maybe there is no much difference with high Mpix FF cameras ? ) Thanks
There are pros and cons, but, for me, the sweet spot remains full frame. There are so many more lens choices, the lenses are more compact, and they are more likely to have larger maximum apertures which allows you to shoot in a wider variety of lighting conditions. I'm testing the 20-35mm F4 (a very nice lens), but that maximum aperture of F4 means that there are many situations where I've got to have the ISO higher, and even by ISO 3200 the GFX100S I'm testing it on gets pretty noisy.
The a7r4 and A1 are in my opinion a lot more usable
There's no question about that.
Around minute 14 did you start comparing different ISO levels for the Sony Alpha against the same GFX ISO100 image? Or did I miss something?
The cameras don't have the same base ISO, which makes exact comparisons sometimes difficult.
Dustin, did you use electronic shutter mode, or at least EFCS, on the 50SII to level the playing field with the A1 on the resolution test?
I used EFCS
Thanks for the reply Dustin. EFCS setting on the 50SII should have at least got the playing field close between the lenses (assuming the A1 was using electronic shutter). The mediocre test result of the GF110 shocks me, sample variation hopefully. That also makes me want to take a look at the Sigma for my A1 if the AF is not compromised at that performance level.
Question about unrelated cams, which one would you choose, A7RIV or eos R5?
If it were just using the camera, I'd go R5, but if you're talking about the systems, too, then I'd go Sony because of so many decent priced lenses.
Excellent review.
This body has some strength, but it is not for some of the genres of my preference.
I would love to shoot landscape with it.
It's a very nice landscape camera.
For now the drawbacks from medium format (speed, price, autofoucs, size and weight) just can't validate the tiniest image quality gain over full frame. But who knows, maybe one day medium format will be like full frame today, because full frame was considered "not worth it" over APS-C.
I think that's true.
If you saw these images for your self on 4K you might think differently, I have the 100s and it is jaw droppingly leaving full frame out to dry, gfx is sopping with realism.
it's not tiny at all. the tonal contrast of medium format sensors is mind-blowing. not to mention the joy of shooting 60mm fov with a 85mm lens. or shooting 16mm fov with a 28mm on a hassy. it gives you a different experience. Full frame is not in the same league.
I don't possess Fujifilm, but whenever I opt for seeing any camera. be it full frame of other ways Fujifilm comes first.
I am curious to know why is it so.
Can you give me more context? What do you mean when you say "whenever I opt for seeing any camera"?
These techno reviews never hit the spot in my opinion
The proof of the camera is always in the photos and not enough here to prove much.
I've seen reviews with photographs which could sell the camera to me
Thanks for your feedback.
What AF system? This is Manual focussing camera, you are buying the sensor only.
Name one medium format camera that has fast AF like full frame cameras.
None - but Fuji can't have it both ways. They want to market their MF as being a superior alternative to full frame (and price them accordingly). Being realistic about the focus limitations is important for those who might be considering the swap.
Amazing that Sony is pretty similar noise -wise to digital “medium format “
Agreed.
nice review, wow btw -21 degrees brr :)
Yup!
Good review. One of the best on this camera. I will get one after a get an used D850 for my Nikon F system. Been updating it during the last 2 years after my D300 broke down so today I have a used D700 .I think I need to update a AF300mm IF-ED screw driver AF lens to a used 400F2.8 as well when I can affor it. I will not transfere to the Nikon Z and S lenses becouse it to expensive to do that and if you not into Video there is no upside to it. I have the Fuji X-Pro 1 and X-T1 with bulk zooms and If I in the futhure need video its cheaper to update one of thoose. I made a misstake 13 years ago when I switch to digital and sold of all my lenses and I stil have not repared my economic buffer after that. I would prefere a better autofocus but the main reason is to use adaters so I can use my old HB 503 CW and Mamiya 7ii lenses. I will get the bulk normal Zoom also. The 100s is out of what I'm willing to pay for a camera unless I get some free money..
Glad to help out, Thomas.
It’s pretty tough to love this or the Hasselblad X1D-II any more these days, given the 8-year old Sony sensor. Of the two, I prefer the X1D-II given the XCD lenses produce more appealing images to my eye, and Hasselblad’s color calibration (every camera body and XCD lens is individually calibrated) means you’ll never have to deal with correcting color casts such as you found in your test of these two cameras. I don’t see any appeal to the Fuji with the Sony 100 MP sensor of this size. Better off buying a used H5-100 or H6-100. Unless either or both of these companies is working with Sony to add a 60 or 80 MP sensor of this size having truly competitive autofocus, all that beautiful glass seems hung out to dry with no camera roadmap that makes sense.
It is an interesting landscape and you're right; a few new sensors would be very welcome.
Wait, I'm confused, on the comparison of image quality against the Sony A1 the Fujifilm is at ISO 100 comparing the Sony up to ISO 6.400, is that fair or useful to the user?
Fair to the user? Dafuq?!
@@dmacrolens what I meant is that the Fujifilm GFX 50S was at ISO 100 for the ISO comparison and the A1 was compared at ISO 100, 800, 3200, 6400. How is ISO 100 on Medium Format VS. ISO 6.400 on 35mm FF useful to a user?
I think he made a mistake lol
chose the wrong pic when comparing iso6400
@@killingspree2009 well it should be significant one to redact his video review if his intention is to showcase a significant comparison as this one.
I would convert it to full spectrum
Wow the A1 and sigma combo out-resolved the medium format, frankly there's little incentive to shoot medium format unless you shoot with their latest sensor, this old 50mp sensor shows its age.
Thos was excellent video
Glad you enjoyed it
This camera should not exist, in my mind. If you are ok with the old sensor, get a GFX50r or 50s used for about half what this GFX50sII costs new. You're getting the same output of this seven year old sensor and basically the same (non-)performance in terms of AF. You lose stabilisation but if you're shooting handheld and need IBIS, chances are that you also need a usable AF. In that case get the 100 or 100s.
Yes I’ve bought a gfx50r for half the price with 800 shutter count and I bought a used mint gfx45-100mm with ois !! And I’m getting excellent images for what I saved nearly 2k and bought a lens with it
I think that is a fair criticism. The GFX100S is a much more intriguing option to me.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Same here, I got the 100 used at my local camera store for less than the 100S retail price. The camera I really want though would be a GFX100R with dedicated dials, compact form factor AND the new sensor. ... Fingers crossed. ;)
Rubbish. How do you know all this if you don’t own the camera?
I own it… the sensor, hence the image quality is outstanding. The ergonomics and usability are fantastic. The IBIS is a game changer, seriously I shoot often at 1/4 sec… and to say you need usable AF if you need IBIS 😂
The AF is quick, I only use single point AFS and would never use face detect for a wedding or for documentary work anyway. In this mode it’s rapid and focusing in low light (16th sec/f4.5/iso 12800) it’s fine.
And it’s £2,000 less than the 100s and the body is now only around £500/£600 more than the original 50s.
I’ve owned lots of cameras in my career, this is the best I’ve ever owned.
@@davidmurray5926yes i agree totaly
I think my A7 IV is a lot more balanced…
In any specific ways?
As a retired professional photographer, I'm always a bit baffled if it comes to stuff, an amateur in nearly all cases, doesn't need. As I was used to Hasselblad, Mamiya, Sinar (view camera's), I now use a Samsung NX20 (bought it for 135 euro's). I had several shots blown up to poster format, which gave enormous detailed results. Further, most of my present photo's, end up on internet. In which I'm sure, this camera will not give more superior results in those cases. When I started about 55 years ago, I soon learned, it's the photographer, not the camera! Enjoy throwing your money away!
This is the age old debate, and, while it is true that the photographer himself is the most important ingredient, the simple fact remains that certain gear enables one to do things that lesser gear does not. My two main cameras allow me to shoot at 20FPS and 30FPS respectively while having full time tracking capabilities. That enables me to get certain shots that would be near impossible with lesser gear.
Spoken like someone who has never tried to set a lap record in a Fiat Panda. Not all money spent on good gear is wasted, ya Geezer.
@@POVwithRC Bull shit, a camera is not a racing car. In fact a view camera is completely manual, and gives better results than any other camera.That's is if you are killed. I walked weeks with a Mamiya RZ through the Egyptian deserts, even riding with the stuff on Camels and Horses. Some months later a went with my wife on vacation there, with your type 35 mm Ferarri, you should see the difference!
@@POVwithRC I also won't be surprised, analogue photography was not your period.
@@POVwithRC I had many assignments in the Egyptian desert. Traveling with just Mamiya RZ gear, also riding horses and camels No auto focus, not even a light meter, which btw I never use. Few months later, I went for a vacation there with my wife, and I took only a 35mm Ferarri with me. You should see the difference. Maybe that's why I earned 300 K years 30 years ago!
I'm not impressed by the image quality at all, given the fact that the sensor is much bigger and the price and size of Fuji G lenses. It's only visibly better in terms of shadow recovery and in other areas it's slightly worse than Sony FF. When we add all the compromises with AF, it does not sound like a bargain anymore, especially considering the fact that you can get similar image quality on some affordable FF bodies such as Sony A7R III (and maybe even A7R II) at a much lower price point and still be better in terms of AF.
GFX 100S looks like a much better value to me, since that camera gives a substantial increase in image quality compared to FF.
That’s what I took from the review as well.. The fact that the A1 looked sharper to me killed any slight interest I had in Fuji’s 50mp MF bodies. I’ve always know that the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is Art is razor sharp but I didn’t expect it to beat a MF lens at equal resolution at all.
Low light performance is stellar but very moot if the AF lets you down.
I also think the loss of dedicated dials for a top screen is both an aesthetic and functional mistake.
@@joe2snj One additional thought regarding low light performance is that in real-life scenarios, FF users would almost never use the same ISO value as MF, simply because of the fact that FF lenses are much faster than MF lenses. So Sony users with 85mm F/1.4 can shoot at half the ISO as Fuji GFX users with 110mm F2. So in a real-life scenario, I wouldn't be surprised that Sony's end result will be cleaner than GFX 50S II.
I agree that the GFX100S is probably the sweet spot, mostly because I think it distinguishes itself more from full frame competitors in its optical performance.