You talking at the end there about zooming in on a big screen reminds me of the first time we got a digital back for our medium format cameras in the studio here, which had a whopping.... *16* megapixels. I have vivid memories of six of us crowded around a 'huge' 22" screen, excitedly zooming in on the most insipid photos just to see what the resolution could reveal. Then the Canon 1Ds mark II came out the next year with a matching 16mp but in a full frame sensor, in a handholdable body with autofocus and ISO up to 1600. We immediately bought four of them and the novelty did not wear off for quite some time... Anyway. I'd love to dump Phase One, but stepping down from an even bigger sensor (I can't believe Fuji are still getting away with calling this "large format" on their website) and 150mp is hard to do, and you highlight enough ergonomic issues that I think this is not the replacement I want it to be. Strange how the outer design of this camera is _so_ different to everything else Fuji do, which I usually like. Still, there's enough good here and in your written review that it makes me hopeful for the 100S and I'll be looking forward to your reviews of that. Thank you for putting in what must be a lot of effort to produce such thorough reviews.
Thanks for the feedback, Sebastian. I do have high hopes for the 100S, as there are some odd ergonomic moves on the GFX-100 that detract from its otherwise goodness.
Great review, Dustin. I rented the GFX 100 along with a GF110mm f2. over the holidays. After seeing the results first hand, I was quite amazed. So much so, I shed a tear when packing it up to send back. It's definitely out of my price range, but I wouldn't hesitate to rent it again for a paid gig and schedule more playing time for myself. With the introduction of the GFXs, that's within my range (after selling off some gear). Looking forward to your review on it.
Good detailed review. Did some of your review get cut at 37:33? You started to compare 25600 to EOS R5, but didn’t see any zoom in to compare and no summary opinion from you. Just curious.
dustin, the viewfinder removes for an accessory hinge, allowing this to funtion like an MF cameras waist level viewfinder, ie: allowing the finder to tilt upwards, while still connected to the camera.
That's true, but I'm not sure why you are telling me this. BTW, that viewfinder is useless if you are using it at waist level. At best it allows you to have the camera down a few inches...but you could accomplish the same by tilting the screen up...and it would be more useful in most situations.
Great review, I've been using the camera since release and I share similar thoughts. I recommend you to try the 110mm f2, or the 250mm f4. Those 2 lenses are in a complete different league.
@@DustinAbbottTWI good day Dustin , i am gonna buy the gfx 100s and wanna know wich lense is better if i will use it in Japan Korea and China , i like urbain photos like cities and portraits of people , so 32-64 or something like this , and 35-70 and the 45-100 , wich one is better ? for my case to have beutiful pics ))
Terrific review. Very well balanced with pluses and minuses. Most noticeable for me in Fuji/Canon portrait comparison was the difference in colors. Canon's were so yellow/warm and uniform in terms of her skintones. The Fuji gave the feeling of winter. Crisp, gradation of bright tones with nice pinks in the cheeks. Her hair was a much deeper brown. All I can say, if you have an R5, just don't compare your photos to the Fuji's!
Fair enough. A little of that comes from the rendering of the Samyang glass that I used, but I did find the Canon warmer even with an excellent Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II attached.
Considering that there are faster lenses available for full frame, the noise performance of Fuji Medium Format is basically only applicable at base iso. Also a bit confused about the "natural contrast". Normally slightly lower contrast is better (like c-log, s-log etc) and can be corrected easily in post.
Good contrast is always preferable as an optical property. Even in LOG recording where you are flattening the tone curve intentionally, the potential for dialing back in strong contrast is important.
Great review! I wonder which of the full frame brands that will be first on the ball to bring out a "full frame" sensor in a 4×3 format? Larger sensor without having to change the form factor of the overall system.
Interesting thought. I don't love the 4:3 ratio, myself, but you could slightly enlarge the sensor as you say. The downside would be that you do introduce a negative crop factor, say to 0.90x or something.
Great review! I'm wondering how much of those contrast/micro-contrast differences are due to sensors and how much is due to lenses used. I know that Samyang is a great lens, but in the end, it's a comparison of the budget lens (on the Canon side) vs top-of-the-line (on the Fuji side). I wonder if results will be even closer with Canon 85mm 1.2 or 50mm 1.2.
What color profile did you use? Did you use the Fuji deliver film simulators or Adobe profile? if Fuji then which profile did you use I liked if very much?
Great review Dustin. Per your review, to me, the visible takeaways of the gfx 100 benefits in comparison to canon r5 are (1) significantly pleasing skin tones of the portrait shots in gfx 100 (might be because of the colour profile used in the raw converters for r5 or might be non native lens use or WB - colour science not sure) 2. Outstanding cropping ability in post due to massive details in the original raw 3. Stunning exposure latitude All these comes at the expense of mobility and agility though. Looking forward for the 100s review 🙏
I was trying to find a fairly equivalent focal length to the limited options I had available for Fuji. The Samyang is an excellent lens, BTW. Very close in performance to the much more expensive Canon 85mm F1.2.
A great review 👌 Would have loved it if you did the review for the latest gfx 100s🤩 . I don’t see the point in spending nearly 5000 dollers on a canon or Nikon when you can buy a Fuji gfx 100s for nearly the same price🤔📸👌
I tested the GFX 100 S recently and to be honest , the files are great , but the huge trade-off to my feeling the AF which is really not usable for playing children , or walking dogs , or moving persons , of course no action.A real bummer for me to be honest
@@marleenvandam6931 it’s quite funny but don’t forget it’s a medium format. They are not supposed to be fast. Can you take a Large format film camera 4x5 and shoot kids ? And run after them. People needs to be educated. But I get it since it has AF. You want it be fast. Wait 8-10 years and it will be fast. Just don’t forget what type of camera it is. I have gfx 50s and 100. Never was attracted by 100s - too small. I hope Fuji will make a 200 or 400mp monster
I've enjoyed very much this test. However, my main doubt, the thing i can't seem to find a clear explanation on the web, is: shooting at 16bit instead of 14bit makes any difference? Shooting at 5fps limkts the camera at 14 bit, so I wonder if it´s worth sacrificing speed to get those 16 bit. Any tests on this?
Check out the text review. I have a section devoted to that under the sensor performance sector. The short answer is that there is little apparent advantage even when side by side. The only place I would say go ahead and use 16 bit is if you are shooting uncompressed RAWs. There is almost no difference in file size then. It's about a 20% file size savings when shooting lossless to go with 14 bit.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, it was a great read. Just a couple of friendly notes, in the comparison pics between 16 bit and 14 bit lossless, it says 16 bit in both images, that's why on a first quick look I wasn't able to find it. Nothing really that matters if you read the whole thing, but I just wanted to tell you just in case. And the other thing I wanted to mention, the Fuji GFX 100s makes all of it even BETTER!. Smaller body... better AF.... 4000$ cheaper... better IBIS... more Fuji filters... It's so good!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Absolutely. The only gfx that will survive in my opinion is the gfx50R, since it's the much cheaper one (they will reduce the price even more i think) and has that range finder retro look, appealing for many. Thanks for your lovely videos once again
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm sure the handling and performance of the 100 s will impress you, given the sensor is the same. I think fuji have knocked it out of the park with th 100s!
Tnx very thorough and nice as usual. I like the DR/shadow recovery/tonality, etc. comparison with the R5 in particular. I reached similar results playing with the raws of the two. Once thing that perhaps is worth emphasising more than what was said in your review is that you need to be stopping down lenses for equivalent DOF with the FF and so it is a good thing that the GFX has good IBIS, DM and less noise at high ISO however, I wonder given that one can get faster FF lenses (e.g. f/1.2-1.4) and therefore you can shoot handheld at lower ISO there may be situations that the DM will equalise or even the R5 may be better at ISO 100 vs a GFX at ISO 200-300 (according to photons-2-photos). I think the fastest GFX lens is f/2. So a FF f/1.4 will have a full stop of advantage and all else being equal the GFX will need to double its ISO to match the shutter speed. I hope you get the point/sorry if I don't explain it very well.
I do understand your point, and it is a fair one. There are obviously some areas where the extra development investment in full frame has maximized that architecture and reduced the advantages of the larger sensor.
Thank you for making this detailed review which is really helpful and valuable . I just wanted to add some more values not covered in this video (i recently got the GFX100S & comparing to my a7riv), i am able to get much more details in extreme highlight compared to my a7riv, the shadows details is also better and has better contrast. There are a couple of amazing lenses that are able to resolve the 102MP but i recently had to return a zoom lens that did not resolve enough details, so be careful about the choices if you care about resolution (i hope Dustin will cover more lenses in the next reviews). There are many other functionality options that i love about this system including long exposure in camera up to 60min, focus stacking option (for macro work), dual exposure, the choice of different raw formats, and built in profiles.... i know that it’s difficult to cover everything in one review. I thought however that this might be useful to share. @pixtarami
As always an excellent review Dustin. Where I find this camera shines is in its ability to use adapted lenses and work with them so well. The Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar is perfect at its native 3x4. The Zeiss Otus 100, 85, and 55 excellent at the 4x5 ratio and 96MP. The Otus 28mm due to its vignetting is best at 1x1 but you still have 76MP to work with. If you still have your 85mm Otus take some shots with it and you will be amazed at the amount of detail it's able to resolve. If you ever get to borrow that 100mm Otus again, and use it on this camera, I guarantee you`ll buy it! The GFX 100 EVF was made for these lenses and their beautiful/tactile throw.
Hi Dustin! I would maybe change the font on the thumbnail for this video, it's very hard to read the cursive when its that small on the screen. Keep making awesome vidoes!
dustin two main issues/comments with the focussing that you describe @20:37 is that it could possibly be a d.o.f. issue, as you come from 35 mm format world, I have some experience/knowledge of MF/LF systems, and they tipically have max apatures of f3.5, F4.0; lens design would be too large and expensive for f 2.5, 2.8, 1.4 glass, this means with the laws of physics essentially the 1.4 iris dof. you are used to is what you ARE GETTING here with this glass!!- as it is as wide as you can go!!, even if it is F4, so if this focussing becomes problimatic, up the f number to 5.6 or 8 this should fix this, However don't go past f11 to f16 or higher, LENS CA & Diffraction ARE noticable (bigger sensor, so it CAN see these), from Phase One tutorials {phase one's own/ Ambassadors advice!!}, if this is to be taken as gospell. ( that was with 150MP backs!!) Alternatively with MF in particular, the lenses are longer focal length than "35 mm" format, ie: 80 mm is your "50 mm", 150/180 is the "85/105" so the longer focal length is harder to keep still while hand holding ( lens/camera format magnifies any camera wabble), so try this again on a tripod, and see if this fixes things. had the same trouble with my first hasselblad 500c/m, the first roll!, all blurred, due I presume to this!!
Ummm, I appreciate the feedback, Andy, but that's just not the case when it comes to the focusing issues I describe. I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of lenses; I'm familiar with depth of field on many types of systems.
Do you think we will ever see "affordable" (meaning less than 10,000 US dollars) real medium format cameras with 56x45mm (or bigger) sensors in my remaining lifetime (maybe 13 years)? I can't get past the 44x33mm "Medium format standard" we are stuck with in cheaper cameras at the moment. My thinking is, if I really want to move onto to bigger from 24x36mm, let's make it a REALLY big change and make it more worthwhile. Thank you Dustin, great work as always.
There's a fair argument to be made that there is more latitude for a noticeable difference from full frame with the larger 56x45 sensor, though, to be fair, this camera does have excellent image quality.
What really hits me in this comparison is that R5 image looks like the greenish/yellowish Sony of old. Not a good look unfortunately. Though as you explained it may indeed come down to the lens itself. It’s a bit of a pity that you didn’t have any of Canon’s own 85mm RF offerings. It would be very interesting to compare the exact colour reproduction.
That's of course a lightroom issue. Many reviewers have noticed this. JPEGs and raw files with DPP are excellent. C1 should also have way better color reproduction than lightroom.
I actually think the right color balance is somewhere in between the two. The Fuji results are skewed just a little cool, while the Canon results are too warm. And yes, I do think the Samyang glass is the most likely cause, as their glass does tend to be warm. The comparison wasn't really about color science, though.
P.S. The Canon results were also warm in a landscape comparison that I did using the Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II, though, and that lens is golden in the best sense of the word. I think it is still one of Canon's best non-super-tele lenses.
I’ve been shooting with the GFX 100 for a few weeks now and I just love it. Was considering waiting for the Nikon Z9 to restock, but man. This camera is perfect for what I want to shoot: studio, and street photography. I specifically don’t want to shoot sports, I do quite enough video work for sports. The colors are top notch and I don’t find it to be too big either (being almost 7ft tall def helps, but my 5’3” partner has no problem using this camera in her tiny hands either. I think ppl focus too hard on these things. Grand scheme: it’s not so bad) One other reason I chose this over the 100s is, again, being a taller guy I want to be able to swivel the evf up and look down into it. Not looking to shoot ppl’s bald spots! 😆 Anyway thank you for such a detailed review! I was curious what other ppl were saying about this camera. I have zero buyer’s remorse
Hi Dustin, It's me again! I have watched both of your youtube reviews and read your written review for the Fujifilm GFX-100. In my honest opinion, (IMHO), this camera gets a 420 FAIL. Like you, I like the sensor; it's fantastic! I think that all of the Medium Format camera makers need to get with the program, because full frame is coming fast. In 3 or 4 years from now Sony is going to be releasing a 100MP, 16-bit, Full Frame camera that also does everything else very well. Talk to you later, Mathew
I took all minus points from this review (completely irrelevant compared to other MF offers) and bought one while ago.For the money you pay it has better IQ then FF and a lot of advantages over other MF cameras.One of the biggest one is price.Hope GFX100s will be as good if not better then GFX100. It looks promising with size and weight.
Hi Kenneth, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no room for improvement, but the problem is that your suggestion was grossly exaggerated, which doesn't lend itself to the idea of "constructive criticism".
Dustin your videos are very thorough and pleasing to listen to, much better than most could do with no prompting and minimal cuts. The only improvements needed are in the cameras and lenses you review :)
You talking at the end there about zooming in on a big screen reminds me of the first time we got a digital back for our medium format cameras in the studio here, which had a whopping.... *16* megapixels. I have vivid memories of six of us crowded around a 'huge' 22" screen, excitedly zooming in on the most insipid photos just to see what the resolution could reveal. Then the Canon 1Ds mark II came out the next year with a matching 16mp but in a full frame sensor, in a handholdable body with autofocus and ISO up to 1600. We immediately bought four of them and the novelty did not wear off for quite some time...
Anyway. I'd love to dump Phase One, but stepping down from an even bigger sensor (I can't believe Fuji are still getting away with calling this "large format" on their website) and 150mp is hard to do, and you highlight enough ergonomic issues that I think this is not the replacement I want it to be. Strange how the outer design of this camera is _so_ different to everything else Fuji do, which I usually like. Still, there's enough good here and in your written review that it makes me hopeful for the 100S and I'll be looking forward to your reviews of that. Thank you for putting in what must be a lot of effort to produce such thorough reviews.
Thanks for the feedback, Sebastian. I do have high hopes for the 100S, as there are some odd ergonomic moves on the GFX-100 that detract from its otherwise goodness.
Great review, Dustin. I rented the GFX 100 along with a GF110mm f2. over the holidays. After seeing the results first hand, I was quite amazed. So much so, I shed a tear when packing it up to send back. It's definitely out of my price range, but I wouldn't hesitate to rent it again for a paid gig and schedule more playing time for myself. With the introduction of the GFXs, that's within my range (after selling off some gear). Looking forward to your review on it.
That sounds about right!
Thanks again for running such a quality channel.
Glad you enjoy it!
Will you be doing the Fujifilm GFX 100s anytime soon?
As soon as they have a loaner for me.
@@DustinAbbottTWI looking forward to it!
Me too!
Good detailed review. Did some of your review get cut at 37:33? You started to compare 25600 to EOS R5, but didn’t see any zoom in to compare and no summary opinion from you. Just curious.
I think I may have made a wrong cut in there. There was a lot going on in this review!
dustin, the viewfinder removes for an accessory hinge, allowing this to funtion like an MF cameras waist level viewfinder, ie: allowing the finder to tilt upwards, while still connected to the camera.
That's true, but I'm not sure why you are telling me this. BTW, that viewfinder is useless if you are using it at waist level. At best it allows you to have the camera down a few inches...but you could accomplish the same by tilting the screen up...and it would be more useful in most situations.
Great review, I've been using the camera since release and I share similar thoughts. I recommend you to try the 110mm f2, or the 250mm f4. Those 2 lenses are in a complete different league.
I've heard that. I've asked for the 110mm to accompany the GFX-100S when I review it.
@@DustinAbbottTWI good day Dustin , i am gonna buy the gfx 100s and wanna know wich lense is better if i will use it in Japan Korea and China , i like urbain photos like cities and portraits of people , so 32-64 or something like this , and 35-70 and the 45-100 , wich one is better ? for my case to have beutiful pics ))
Terrific review. Very well balanced with pluses and minuses. Most noticeable for me in Fuji/Canon portrait comparison was the difference in colors. Canon's were so yellow/warm and uniform in terms of her skintones. The Fuji gave the feeling of winter. Crisp, gradation of bright tones with nice pinks in the cheeks. Her hair was a much deeper brown. All I can say, if you have an R5, just don't compare your photos to the Fuji's!
Fair enough. A little of that comes from the rendering of the Samyang glass that I used, but I did find the Canon warmer even with an excellent Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II attached.
Considering that there are faster lenses available for full frame, the noise performance of Fuji Medium Format is basically only applicable at base iso.
Also a bit confused about the "natural contrast". Normally slightly lower contrast is better (like c-log, s-log etc) and can be corrected easily in post.
Good contrast is always preferable as an optical property. Even in LOG recording where you are flattening the tone curve intentionally, the potential for dialing back in strong contrast is important.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeah might be. But is it the glass or the camera?
I’m three mins in and I already want to buy it.
That's what Fuji wants to hear, I'm sure.
Great review! I wonder which of the full frame brands that will be first on the ball to bring out a "full frame" sensor in a 4×3 format? Larger sensor without having to change the form factor of the overall system.
Interesting thought. I don't love the 4:3 ratio, myself, but you could slightly enlarge the sensor as you say. The downside would be that you do introduce a negative crop factor, say to 0.90x or something.
That’s a beast no doubt. Camera tech has been evolving exponentially. 102mp in a body I can handhold. Incredible indeed.
For sure...and that will be even more amazing in the 100S
Great review! I'm wondering how much of those contrast/micro-contrast differences are due to sensors and how much is due to lenses used. I know that Samyang is a great lens, but in the end, it's a comparison of the budget lens (on the Canon side) vs top-of-the-line (on the Fuji side). I wonder if results will be even closer with Canon 85mm 1.2 or 50mm 1.2.
If anything, I would venture that the Samyang is the sharper lens.
Dustin
You do the best reviews.
Thank you very much!
Great review, Dustin. This is as thorough a review as I've seen on this camera. Fuji has certainly made medium format very tempting!
Totally agree!
What color profile did you use? Did you use the Fuji deliver film simulators or Adobe profile? if Fuji then which profile did you use I liked if very much?
You'll have to clarify what image you are asking about.
@@DustinAbbottTWI You have shown in the beginning of the review road with snow and trees and the girl standing as portrait.
Ahhh, that is largely out of camera RAW. Color was just very good.
Great review Dustin. Per your review, to me, the visible takeaways of the gfx 100 benefits in comparison to canon r5 are (1) significantly pleasing skin tones of the portrait shots in gfx 100 (might be because of the colour profile used in the raw converters for r5 or might be non native lens use or WB - colour science not sure) 2. Outstanding cropping ability in post due to massive details in the original raw 3. Stunning exposure latitude
All these comes at the expense of mobility and agility though. Looking forward for the 100s review 🙏
Fair assessments I would say.
OK, but why Samyang on R5 ? You don't have a good native Canon lens ? :(
I was trying to find a fairly equivalent focal length to the limited options I had available for Fuji. The Samyang is an excellent lens, BTW. Very close in performance to the much more expensive Canon 85mm F1.2.
Excellent Dustin as always , looking forward to the 100s review , keep up the great work thanks.
My pleasure.
The remote jack is 2.5mm not 3.5mm. My GFX 100 is in performance mode, I experience no shutter lag.
Do you have any dropoff in focus accuracy in performance mode?
A great review 👌 Would have loved it if you did the review for the latest gfx 100s🤩 . I don’t see the point in spending nearly 5000 dollers on a canon or Nikon when you can buy a Fuji gfx 100s for nearly the same price🤔📸👌
I do plan to get to the GFX-100, but I needed a longer term loaner to learn the system and couldn't tie up a GFX-100s yet.
I tested the GFX 100 S recently and to be honest , the files are great , but the huge trade-off to my feeling the AF which is really not usable for playing children , or walking dogs , or moving persons , of course no action.A real bummer for me to be honest
@@marleenvandam6931 it’s quite funny but don’t forget it’s a medium format. They are not supposed to be fast. Can you take a Large format film camera 4x5 and shoot kids ? And run after them.
People needs to be educated.
But I get it since it has AF. You want it be fast. Wait 8-10 years and it will be fast. Just don’t forget what type of camera it is.
I have gfx 50s and 100. Never was attracted by 100s - too small. I hope Fuji will make a 200 or 400mp monster
I've enjoyed very much this test. However, my main doubt, the thing i can't seem to find a clear explanation on the web, is: shooting at 16bit instead of 14bit makes any difference? Shooting at 5fps limkts the camera at 14 bit, so I wonder if it´s worth sacrificing speed to get those 16 bit. Any tests on this?
Check out the text review. I have a section devoted to that under the sensor performance sector. The short answer is that there is little apparent advantage even when side by side. The only place I would say go ahead and use 16 bit is if you are shooting uncompressed RAWs. There is almost no difference in file size then. It's about a 20% file size savings when shooting lossless to go with 14 bit.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you, it was a great read. Just a couple of friendly notes, in the comparison pics between 16 bit and 14 bit lossless, it says 16 bit in both images, that's why on a first quick look I wasn't able to find it. Nothing really that matters if you read the whole thing, but I just wanted to tell you just in case. And the other thing I wanted to mention, the Fuji GFX 100s makes all of it even BETTER!. Smaller body... better AF.... 4000$ cheaper... better IBIS... more Fuji filters... It's so good!
It does look that way. I can see the 100S really cannibalizing GFX-100 sales other than those who genuinely want the bigger body.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Absolutely. The only gfx that will survive in my opinion is the gfx50R, since it's the much cheaper one (they will reduce the price even more i think) and has that range finder retro look, appealing for many. Thanks for your lovely videos once again
Excellent review!
Glad you liked it!
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm sure the handling and performance of the 100 s will impress you, given the sensor is the same. I think fuji have knocked it out of the park with th 100s!
I suspect you're right.
Tnx very thorough and nice as usual. I like the DR/shadow recovery/tonality, etc. comparison with the R5 in particular. I reached similar results playing with the raws of the two. Once thing that perhaps is worth emphasising more than what was said in your review is that you need to be stopping down lenses for equivalent DOF with the FF and so it is a good thing that the GFX has good IBIS, DM and less noise at high ISO however, I wonder given that one can get faster FF lenses (e.g. f/1.2-1.4) and therefore you can shoot handheld at lower ISO there may be situations that the DM will equalise or even the R5 may be better at ISO 100 vs a GFX at ISO 200-300 (according to photons-2-photos). I think the fastest GFX lens is f/2. So a FF f/1.4 will have a full stop of advantage and all else being equal the GFX will need to double its ISO to match the shutter speed. I hope you get the point/sorry if I don't explain it very well.
I do understand your point, and it is a fair one. There are obviously some areas where the extra development investment in full frame has maximized that architecture and reduced the advantages of the larger sensor.
best reviewer ever
Thank you very much.
Thank you for making this detailed review which is really helpful and valuable . I just wanted to add some more values not covered in this video (i recently got the GFX100S & comparing to my a7riv), i am able to get much more details in extreme highlight compared to my a7riv, the shadows details is also better and has better contrast. There are a couple of amazing lenses that are able to resolve the 102MP but i recently had to return a zoom lens that did not resolve enough details, so be careful about the choices if you care about resolution (i hope Dustin will cover more lenses in the next reviews). There are many other functionality options that i love about this system including long exposure in camera up to 60min, focus stacking option (for macro work), dual exposure, the choice of different raw formats, and built in profiles.... i know that it’s difficult to cover everything in one review. I thought however that this might be useful to share. @pixtarami
Thanks for the additional info. The magic is in the details from this sensor.
which zoom lens?
Adding a (pricey) L bracket helped ergonomics on the vertical grip for me.
Thanks for another great review.
Adding expense and weight is probably not the solution most are looking for!
As always an excellent review Dustin. Where I find this camera shines is in its ability to use adapted lenses and work with them so well. The Zeiss 135 Apo Sonnar is perfect at its native 3x4. The Zeiss Otus 100, 85, and 55 excellent at the 4x5 ratio and 96MP. The Otus 28mm due to its vignetting is best at 1x1 but you still have 76MP to work with. If you still have your 85mm Otus take some shots with it and you will be amazed at the amount of detail it's able to resolve. If you ever get to borrow that 100mm Otus again, and use it on this camera, I guarantee you`ll buy it! The GFX 100 EVF was made for these lenses and their beautiful/tactile throw.
Do they make them in GF mount or are you using an adapter?
That would be an amazing pairing. Unfortunately all the Otus lenses have been loaners for me; I don't own any of them.
@@Pixtarami K&F makes an excellent adapter. Nikon F mount to Fuji GFX
the ISO comparison between r5 got cut out
And it looks like DR comparison is missing, but maybe that's on purpose
I had to try to limit the length of the review somewhere, and that's what got cut.
@@DustinAbbottTWI can we see it somewhere?
It's not in anything right now. I might do a separate video where I focus more on comparisons.
Hi Dustin! I would maybe change the font on the thumbnail for this video, it's very hard to read the cursive when its that small on the screen. Keep making awesome vidoes!
Noted!
Nice review, thank you. Would love to have this camera for my landscape work but I would need to sell one of my kidneys.
Pretty much!
Try the GFX 100s you’ll only have to sell your spleen 😎
dustin two main issues/comments with the focussing that you describe @20:37 is that it could possibly be a d.o.f. issue, as you come from 35 mm format world, I have some experience/knowledge of MF/LF systems, and they tipically have max apatures of f3.5, F4.0; lens design would be too large and expensive for f 2.5, 2.8, 1.4 glass, this means with the laws of physics essentially the 1.4 iris dof. you are used to is what you ARE GETTING here with this glass!!- as it is as wide as you can go!!, even if it is F4, so if this focussing becomes problimatic, up the f number to 5.6 or 8 this should fix this, However don't go past f11 to f16 or higher, LENS CA & Diffraction ARE noticable (bigger sensor, so it CAN see these), from Phase One tutorials {phase one's own/ Ambassadors advice!!}, if this is to be taken as gospell. ( that was with 150MP backs!!)
Alternatively with MF in particular, the lenses are longer focal length than "35 mm" format, ie: 80 mm is your "50 mm", 150/180 is the "85/105" so the longer focal length is harder to keep still while hand holding ( lens/camera format magnifies any camera wabble), so try this again on a tripod, and see if this fixes things. had the same trouble with my first hasselblad 500c/m, the first roll!, all blurred, due I presume to this!!
Ummm, I appreciate the feedback, Andy, but that's just not the case when it comes to the focusing issues I describe. I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of lenses; I'm familiar with depth of field on many types of systems.
Do you think we will ever see "affordable" (meaning less than 10,000 US dollars) real medium format cameras with 56x45mm (or bigger) sensors in my remaining lifetime (maybe 13 years)? I can't get past the 44x33mm "Medium format standard" we are stuck with in cheaper cameras at the moment. My thinking is, if I really want to move onto to bigger from 24x36mm, let's make it a REALLY big change and make it more worthwhile. Thank you Dustin, great work as always.
There's a fair argument to be made that there is more latitude for a noticeable difference from full frame with the larger 56x45 sensor, though, to be fair, this camera does have excellent image quality.
R5 + 50 1.2 + 85 1.2 and may be more...for the price of the GFX body, hm... Tnx Dustin!
It's expensive, for sure!
Time for a gfx 100 s test.......
I'll definitely get to that in the next month or two.
Great Review like always. This camera is for those who have big hands and big pockets.
Very true
Strike my previous comment...you answered my question at the end of the video. Nice review of teh GFX 100...looking forward to the GFX 100s...
Glad to help!
What really hits me in this comparison is that R5 image looks like the greenish/yellowish Sony of old. Not a good look unfortunately. Though as you explained it may indeed come down to the lens itself. It’s a bit of a pity that you didn’t have any of Canon’s own 85mm RF offerings. It would be very interesting to compare the exact colour reproduction.
That's of course a lightroom issue. Many reviewers have noticed this. JPEGs and raw files with DPP are excellent. C1 should also have way better color reproduction than lightroom.
I actually think the right color balance is somewhere in between the two. The Fuji results are skewed just a little cool, while the Canon results are too warm. And yes, I do think the Samyang glass is the most likely cause, as their glass does tend to be warm. The comparison wasn't really about color science, though.
P.S. The Canon results were also warm in a landscape comparison that I did using the Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II, though, and that lens is golden in the best sense of the word. I think it is still one of Canon's best non-super-tele lenses.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sonder Creative also made a recent video about the R5 and had the same color issues.
@@MK-bg9bj Yep! Colours are so much better from the R5 when you use DPP. Lightroom colour profiles are quite bad for this camera.
I’ve been shooting with the GFX 100 for a few weeks now and I just love it. Was considering waiting for the Nikon Z9 to restock, but man. This camera is perfect for what I want to shoot: studio, and street photography. I specifically don’t want to shoot sports, I do quite enough video work for sports. The colors are top notch and I don’t find it to be too big either (being almost 7ft tall def helps, but my 5’3” partner has no problem using this camera in her tiny hands either. I think ppl focus too hard on these things. Grand scheme: it’s not so bad)
One other reason I chose this over the 100s is, again, being a taller guy I want to be able to swivel the evf up and look down into it. Not looking to shoot ppl’s bald spots! 😆
Anyway thank you for such a detailed review! I was curious what other ppl were saying about this camera. I have zero buyer’s remorse
I'm glad you are enjoying it. It definitely has an amazing sensor and can produce stunningly good pictures.
Hi Dustin,
It's me again! I have watched both of your youtube reviews and read your written review for the Fujifilm GFX-100. In my honest opinion, (IMHO), this camera gets a 420 FAIL. Like you, I like the sensor; it's fantastic! I think that all of the Medium Format camera makers need to get with the program, because full frame is coming fast. In 3 or 4 years from now Sony is going to be releasing a 100MP, 16-bit, Full Frame camera that also does everything else very well.
Talk to you later,
Mathew
It remains to be seen how much more can effectively be squeezed out of a full frame sensor, but I suspect 100 MP is possible.
I took all minus points from this review (completely irrelevant compared to other MF offers) and bought one while ago.For the money you pay it has better IQ then FF and a lot of advantages over other MF cameras.One of the biggest one is price.Hope GFX100s will be as good if not better then GFX100. It looks promising with size and weight.
Agreed. I too am hopeful about the GFX-100S. I'm glad you're enjoying the camera.
One crop factor.?
I'm not sure what your question is. The native ratio factor is 4:3, but you can select a variety of other ratios/crops
That camera is ginormous....almost jokingly so....it wouldn’t matter to me if it had 500 pixels.
Fair enough. It's one of the big reasons why I think that the GFX-100S will be a much better seller for them.
That’s a brick of a camera, not for your usual camera user that’s for sure.
Definitely not "pocketable" :)
"We have almost no dials on the camera." We have FOUR ones.
If you are counting virtual ones, you are missing my point.
@@DustinAbbottTWI gfx100 has four REAL dials. And they are pressable and multifunctional. It's more than other convenient cameras have.
Excellent, Thank you, (suggestion: don't say "you know" more than 500 times.)
With all due respect, generate a 45 minute video without a teleprompter and with perfect diction, and then criticize.
@@DustinAbbottTWI you are right: you are perfect and there is no room for improvement.
Hi Kenneth, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no room for improvement, but the problem is that your suggestion was grossly exaggerated, which doesn't lend itself to the idea of "constructive criticism".
Dustin your videos are very thorough and pleasing to listen to, much better than most could do with no prompting and minimal cuts. The only improvements needed are in the cameras and lenses you review :)
Too much talking without point
Thank you for your feedback.