Thanks for this ... I do, however, own both cameras myself. I was hoping the jump from my XT-3 to my GFX 50S II would be bigger. I really only notice a difference when pixel peeping (more detail/resolution) but I was hoping for more of a MF "look" when viewing images at a global level. I view the pictures on a 16.2" MacBook screen -- maybe the look I seek would manifest on a 27" 5k monitor or in a large print? Then there's the issue of lenses. I've only used two zooms -- 35-70 and 100-200. Both are good but don't run circles on my X-series "Red Badge" zooms. Maybe if I got the 80 f/1.7 or 110 f/2 I'd really see GFX shine. Candidly (and I hate to say this) but I wouldn't have bought into the system if I could do it over again. I'm in this weird gray area where I'm come to realize APS-C is more than good enough for me but I can't go back because GFX is still better.
Daniel, thanks for the awesome reply. I think you hit a lot of points that I totally agree with. Glad the video was good to see for you! I would say, though, that the only paid work I've done recently has been with the 80mm f1.7 and the GFX for LinkedIn headshots and the results from that are just bonkers (dylandersen.com/headshots). There's one photo in there taken on the 33mm f1.4/X-H2S, see if you can guess which one it is. But at the end of the day, APS-C and Fujifilm have come so far, particularly with the new 1.4 lenses as they just offer incredible resolving detail. I made a whole video about the 33mm and how I think it produces results for the X-Trans IV and V that make it rival many FF sensors. But yeah, you're right. I don't regret the GFX system purchase - I love shooting with it and constantly get blown away by the results - but when I'm pressed for time/weight/size, I have to take my X-H2S/X-T3 with me and know that I'm still going to get incredible results. Would love to see some of your work Daniel! Where can I go?
@@oxeneers Thanks so much for the response, Dylan! I was afraid my critique would come across as unnecessarily harsh towards the GFX - to the contrary, I really like the camera. IQ is great and it feels super premium. It’s just that the XT-3 has always been so darn good for me, but I nonetheless got caught up in the rumors for the 50S II last year and began to salivate over it. I was more than satisfied with the output from my XT-3 but I wondered how much better it could be on GFX? The pixels are always greener on the other side of the Bayer sensor array. As far as your headshots, was the woman with the dog taken by the 33mm? I don’t yet have website. Alas, my biggest photographic presence is on Instagram: @danielwquirin
As a photographer with a body sub X-T3 I will say No, you don't need it lol. If you're main intentions are to dump the files on social media definitely not. However, if you're doing studio work in a controlled environment or have a business selling prints..yeah that GFX is going to give you that edge for sure
Yeah, that's a big part of the argument. Lens selection for GFX on the long end is lacking, too. But the two prints I have at 40"x30" with my GFX is just so amazing. Unreal quality.
I usually do stills, tripod, longer exposures, buildings, landscapes, woods, that sort of thing. I dont shoot video, I don't need super quick AF...and I'm switching from 5dmk2 so any camera is an upgrade probably. Is Xt5/Xh2 enough or will I notice a big difference with gfx? I'd love a lot of detail like, taking a photo of a house in the evening, and seeing the interior through the window, lit by room lights etc - situations where some cameras would struggle. Yeah that's my biggest dillema - if a 40mpix apsc can do it or do I spent 40% more and get a gfx :P
totally agree with you. I come from the 5D2 but also the medium format 6x7 Pentax. Shot with both in Japan. 6x7 blew Canon out of the water. Shot 10 times less with film, but kept 10 times more photos... they were all so much nicer. Now to Fuji, got myself the xt-20. Hated it for a week, then loved it... but not as nice as the Canon. I could almost feel the APSC being too small. I am quite hesitant to get the XH2 (40mp) because still APSC, vs the GFX50sii... I guess one has to try them both to feel which one is nicest
@@RezaBassiri1 Fuji really upped their game with APSC, it looks much better than it used to. I shoot analog MF too, 5x7 large format and others, really done it all but with film prices now it's kinda hard to do any project and not go bankrupt. Thing is, I want to do macro or long lenses as well and although I could adapt them to GFX, they dont always work as intended and may produce different results (better or worse). XT5 seems easier in that regard.
I think you are both really on the money here. The X-H2 is a fantastic camera, I love mine, and use it daily. The GFX comes out for particular use - when I have more time to do a shoot for professional work, or landscape stuff, or personal work where I have a lot of time and my daughter/wife aren't needing me, haha. I am blown away by the quality of the X-H2 files but they still pale in comparison to the GFX. I think the more interesting conversation is that the X-H2 is quite close to full-frame for landscape work (with the right glass, of course). It's now a GFX above all else conversation. And yes, Nolaan, if you want lens choice and want to dive into different kinds of photography, the X-H2 and associated lenses and bodies are the way to go. The GFX is really for the "standard" photography genres like portrait, landscape, lifestyle, etc.
This is very interesting. My perspective hasn’t changed lol. I know I don’t need it, I still want it. I don’t value the medium format DOF personally. I think you can probably shoot a faster lens if you really care and while it wouldn’t be the same, it would be good. I wonder and hope the the xh2 40mp will render detail noticeably more than the xh2s. Having a true second body that shares ergonomics, lenses and batteries is a much much much more usable situation (not to mention the budget). Also, it still seems to me that if it’s not about the details and it’s about the photo itself, then does the gfx really matter? I’ve bought some really expensive guitars over the years and ultimately had the same conclusion. A 10,000 guitar vs a 1,000 guitar doesn’t make a real world difference by the time you write, record and play the song for an audience. But if you value the experience, and with the camera, if you take joy capturing insane images and peeping them (as I do) then it’s less about what you need, and what floats your boat lol. Ships ahoy!
The DOF isn't important, no, but the 'character' is. There's a certain character to GFX that with the kit lens you won't get but with the other lenses you will.. Moral of the story is that XF or GFX, you are in a fuckin' great place.
As already mentioned: compare again with C1 or DxO and the X-T3 shots will be much much sharper. Not a problem, just Adobes Konverter is broken on the X-Trans sensors. Also, people do not tend to count leaves on trees or examine the texture on house walls or the bark of trees. 100% view is unrealistic for real life photphraphy in 99,9% of all cases.
Yep, definitely true. But I think the point was made here, even in Lightroom (which I used because the majority of users utilize), that the X-Trans IV (and, by extension the new pair of X-Trans V sensors) perform well above their weight - even with some of the oddities that the X-Trans sensor design brings.
Poor rendering of the foliage is due in part to the bad demosaicing and sharpening algorithm used by Lightroom for X-trans sensors. Switching to a different raw processor will yield much better results. DxO photolab 5 with its deepPrime demosaicing/denoising process yields the best results for me. Capture One also produces good results for X-trans sensors. For free options, Darkroom and Rawtherapee have the option to use the excellent Markesteijn algorithm for X-trans demosaicing. All of the above programs will yield markedly better results for raw X-trans files and will makes your comparison between bayer sensors and X-trans sensors much closer.
I have the XT3 and XH2. Both are great cameras. But, I have this itch I want to scratch and it's the GFX 50S II. My self control is waning. LOL I wish I could make sense of it. If I was a pro, the decision would be made. But as a hobbyist, the decision is a difficult one.
It definitely is. Well said. The GFX is definitely a luxury purchase and you need to keep in mind, obviously, your lens investment will be huge. Hard to say no the GFX on sale though!! Definitely a headtwister.
Not all pros goes to medium format coz the megapixels also cause the resolving power of the GFX. If the Xt3 have 50 mp, it would look even more the same
I think the people who appreciates image quality and can afford the GFX will always say that its worth it. And the lenses are incredbily sharp! I love the gf glass!
For sure, the GF lenses are on a whole other planet when it comes to resolving power. It’s like going to SD to 4K when comparing side by side. But the key here is that it’s only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If you post most of your images on social media and don’t create massive print, all of that detail is lost.
Thanks for this ... I do, however, own both cameras myself. I was hoping the jump from my XT-3 to my GFX 50S II would be bigger. I really only notice a difference when pixel peeping (more detail/resolution) but I was hoping for more of a MF "look" when viewing images at a global level. I view the pictures on a 16.2" MacBook screen -- maybe the look I seek would manifest on a 27" 5k monitor or in a large print? Then there's the issue of lenses. I've only used two zooms -- 35-70 and 100-200. Both are good but don't run circles on my X-series "Red Badge" zooms. Maybe if I got the 80 f/1.7 or 110 f/2 I'd really see GFX shine. Candidly (and I hate to say this) but I wouldn't have bought into the system if I could do it over again. I'm in this weird gray area where I'm come to realize APS-C is more than good enough for me but I can't go back because GFX is still better.
Daniel, thanks for the awesome reply. I think you hit a lot of points that I totally agree with. Glad the video was good to see for you! I would say, though, that the only paid work I've done recently has been with the 80mm f1.7 and the GFX for LinkedIn headshots and the results from that are just bonkers (dylandersen.com/headshots). There's one photo in there taken on the 33mm f1.4/X-H2S, see if you can guess which one it is.
But at the end of the day, APS-C and Fujifilm have come so far, particularly with the new 1.4 lenses as they just offer incredible resolving detail. I made a whole video about the 33mm and how I think it produces results for the X-Trans IV and V that make it rival many FF sensors. But yeah, you're right. I don't regret the GFX system purchase - I love shooting with it and constantly get blown away by the results - but when I'm pressed for time/weight/size, I have to take my X-H2S/X-T3 with me and know that I'm still going to get incredible results.
Would love to see some of your work Daniel! Where can I go?
@@oxeneers Thanks so much for the response, Dylan! I was afraid my critique would come across as unnecessarily harsh towards the GFX - to the contrary, I really like the camera. IQ is great and it feels super premium. It’s just that the XT-3 has always been so darn good for me, but I nonetheless got caught up in the rumors for the 50S II last year and began to salivate over it. I was more than satisfied with the output from my XT-3 but I wondered how much better it could be on GFX? The pixels are always greener on the other side of the Bayer sensor array.
As far as your headshots, was the woman with the dog taken by the 33mm?
I don’t yet have website. Alas, my biggest photographic presence is on Instagram: @danielwquirin
As a photographer with a body sub X-T3 I will say No, you don't need it lol. If you're main intentions are to dump the files on social media definitely not.
However, if you're doing studio work in a controlled environment or have a business selling prints..yeah that GFX is going to give you that edge for sure
Yeah, that's a big part of the argument. Lens selection for GFX on the long end is lacking, too. But the two prints I have at 40"x30" with my GFX is just so amazing. Unreal quality.
I usually do stills, tripod, longer exposures, buildings, landscapes, woods, that sort of thing. I dont shoot video, I don't need super quick AF...and I'm switching from 5dmk2 so any camera is an upgrade probably. Is Xt5/Xh2 enough or will I notice a big difference with gfx? I'd love a lot of detail like, taking a photo of a house in the evening, and seeing the interior through the window, lit by room lights etc - situations where some cameras would struggle.
Yeah that's my biggest dillema - if a 40mpix apsc can do it or do I spent 40% more and get a gfx :P
totally agree with you. I come from the 5D2 but also the medium format 6x7 Pentax. Shot with both in Japan. 6x7 blew Canon out of the water. Shot 10 times less with film, but kept 10 times more photos... they were all so much nicer. Now to Fuji, got myself the xt-20. Hated it for a week, then loved it... but not as nice as the Canon. I could almost feel the APSC being too small. I am quite hesitant to get the XH2 (40mp) because still APSC, vs the GFX50sii... I guess one has to try them both to feel which one is nicest
@@RezaBassiri1 Fuji really upped their game with APSC, it looks much better than it used to. I shoot analog MF too, 5x7 large format and others, really done it all but with film prices now it's kinda hard to do any project and not go bankrupt. Thing is, I want to do macro or long lenses as well and although I could adapt them to GFX, they dont always work as intended and may produce different results (better or worse). XT5 seems easier in that regard.
I think you are both really on the money here. The X-H2 is a fantastic camera, I love mine, and use it daily. The GFX comes out for particular use - when I have more time to do a shoot for professional work, or landscape stuff, or personal work where I have a lot of time and my daughter/wife aren't needing me, haha.
I am blown away by the quality of the X-H2 files but they still pale in comparison to the GFX. I think the more interesting conversation is that the X-H2 is quite close to full-frame for landscape work (with the right glass, of course). It's now a GFX above all else conversation.
And yes, Nolaan, if you want lens choice and want to dive into different kinds of photography, the X-H2 and associated lenses and bodies are the way to go. The GFX is really for the "standard" photography genres like portrait, landscape, lifestyle, etc.
This is very interesting. My perspective hasn’t changed lol. I know I don’t need it, I still want it.
I don’t value the medium format DOF personally. I think you can probably shoot a faster lens if you really care and while it wouldn’t be the same, it would be good.
I wonder and hope the the xh2 40mp will render detail noticeably more than the xh2s. Having a true second body that shares ergonomics, lenses and batteries is a much much much more usable situation (not to mention the budget).
Also, it still seems to me that if it’s not about the details and it’s about the photo itself, then does the gfx really matter?
I’ve bought some really expensive guitars over the years and ultimately had the same conclusion. A 10,000 guitar vs a 1,000 guitar doesn’t make a real world difference by the time you write, record and play the song for an audience.
But if you value the experience, and with the camera, if you take joy capturing insane images and peeping them (as I do) then it’s less about what you need, and what floats your boat lol. Ships ahoy!
The DOF isn't important, no, but the 'character' is. There's a certain character to GFX that with the kit lens you won't get but with the other lenses you will.. Moral of the story is that XF or GFX, you are in a fuckin' great place.
Thanks for the info!! Love my XT3
It's a hell of a camera!!!
As already mentioned: compare again with C1 or DxO and the X-T3 shots will be much much sharper. Not a problem, just Adobes Konverter is broken on the X-Trans sensors. Also, people do not tend to count leaves on trees or examine the texture on house walls or the bark of trees. 100% view is unrealistic for real life photphraphy in 99,9% of all cases.
Yep, definitely true. But I think the point was made here, even in Lightroom (which I used because the majority of users utilize), that the X-Trans IV (and, by extension the new pair of X-Trans V sensors) perform well above their weight - even with some of the oddities that the X-Trans sensor design brings.
Poor rendering of the foliage is due in part to the bad demosaicing and sharpening algorithm used by Lightroom for X-trans sensors. Switching to a different raw processor will yield much better results. DxO photolab 5 with its deepPrime demosaicing/denoising process yields the best results for me. Capture One also produces good results for X-trans sensors. For free options, Darkroom and Rawtherapee have the option to use the excellent Markesteijn algorithm for X-trans demosaicing. All of the above programs will yield markedly better results for raw X-trans files and will makes your comparison between bayer sensors and X-trans sensors much closer.
Could be. But there's a lot of discussion about how C1 has "worms" too but not as heavy as LR.
I have the XT3 and XH2. Both are great cameras. But, I have this itch I want to scratch and it's the GFX 50S II. My self control is waning. LOL
I wish I could make sense of it. If I was a pro, the decision would be made. But as a hobbyist, the decision is a difficult one.
It definitely is. Well said. The GFX is definitely a luxury purchase and you need to keep in mind, obviously, your lens investment will be huge. Hard to say no the GFX on sale though!! Definitely a headtwister.
Lovely, thank you. Very smart and well made and spoken video, thank you. I wish fuji colors, sonys af and canons ergonomics, but yeah.
Thank you so much. YES! That's the DREAM camera, isn't it?!?!
Not all pros goes to medium format coz the megapixels also cause the resolving power of the GFX. If the Xt3 have 50 mp, it would look even more the same
I agree. The 40MP X-Trans 5 CMOS HR sensor will be very interesting to see in-depth details of. Excited to see what they have in store.
When you have a GFX... your fuji x cameras looks like shit... 😅😭
I think the people who appreciates image quality and can afford the GFX will always say that its worth it. And the lenses are incredbily sharp! I love the gf glass!
For sure, the GF lenses are on a whole other planet when it comes to resolving power. It’s like going to SD to 4K when comparing side by side.
But the key here is that it’s only really noticeable when pixel peeping. If you post most of your images on social media and don’t create massive print, all of that detail is lost.