Kudos to Fujifilm for pushing APS-C so far with the X-H2 that it takes quite a bit of zooming in to see the difference. Granted, the bokeh quality, color reproduction, and lens quality (fringing) on the GFX are amazing - as always, the last 20% of quality makes up 80% of the cost. Certainly food for though for everyone to decide how much of an IQ snob we are versus the amazing portability and versatility of the X system.
I love that phrase, IQ snob LOLLL. Thank you for that. And yeah well said. The higher end you go, the price shoots up drastically, but not really justifiably so!
Great, great video! Insane the step up in image quality and depth that you get with the GFX100S. This video is such an awesome showcase with detailed, clearly explained comparisons to geek out on for anyone looking to make the jump. Thank you for the great content, keep it coming!
Thanks so much for watching Joe! I always appreciate your support!! You know with how well this video did… you know what will be coming later down the road right? A7R5 vs GFX! I might jump into a river if the Sony does really well! 😅
I appreciate the detailed review - and 100% this is exactly the body/lens setups I'd want for both cameras. Yup, all else equal, larger sensor/more megapixels is better than smaller sensor/less megapixels. XH2 is a very strong performer, but I'd like to see Fuji speed up the ES performance to 20 fps with no crop / less rolling shutter. They'd probably have to stack it, but as it stands, I think the ES performance was the biggest letdown of the new sensor. When the GFX can hit about 10fps with little/no compromises I will likely have to go all-in. BTW - how did you find the AF of the 110 vs. the 56/50-140 on the Fuji? I'm praying that Fuji will eventually release a portrait stunner like the 56mm, but with super fast AF motors (the 90mm is too long for indoor work, really, I like the versatility of an 85mm-equivalent).
The GF110 is on the slower side of AF. XF50-140 is pretty fast! I havent used it a ton with the XH2 but naturally out of the 3 you listed, it is def the fastest. I found the XF56 gen 2 kind of slow. But it makes sense being a 1.2 portrait lens. Thanks for watching and taking the time to leave a comment!
@@MikeBanom NP - I'll have to edit my comment since I made a few errors in it - but kudos for understanding what I was asking! I meant to say I'd like a portrait stunner that also has stunning AF performance - the 56 WR does very well, but is definitely more challenging to work with at times.
Nice comparison, althought many of the xh2 shots were shots at 400 iso with higher shutter speed while the gfx was at base iso with lower way lower ss (way more than the 1.2 and f2 différence). We knew it was not a "fair" comparison from the start but still interesting. But I bet between 125 and 400 iso on xh2 you got a little bit of grain added and maybe a tiny bit of details lost
Thanks for watching! You are 100% correct. Unintentional, but did happen. Biggest goof was def the studio, honestly I didnt notice till now and I am kicking myself!
I'm sorry to do this to you. Hahahahahaha. After I tried the GFX for 3 weeks, I never looked at XF the same again. But this was before the XH2/XT5 🤷♂. Rent one 😈
Great video! I own the GFX-50s and the X-T5. I tested the GF 120mm and XF 80mm. Came to a similar conclusion. You get way more sharpness when zoomed in over 100% on MF. Tried with the 45 extension tube as well. Another story then. If you need the extra reach for closeup Macro shots, the XF 80mm wins clearly. So both are needed if you want the best of both worlds.
Thanks for watching! Well said, fully agree. I have a ton of use with the XF80. Truly love that lens. It’s phenomenal! But medium format, nextttttt level.
Might want to shoot the 110 at 2.4 to match the 1.2 on the 56mm. matching aperture is where the aperture is the same in mm. 110/2 = 55m max aperture, the 56/1.2 = 47mm max aperture. 110/2.4 = 46mm which matches 56/1.2. Another interesting fact is that the bokeh balls at the subject plane are that size (nearly). So if you shoot a sharp picture of a ruler with a point light in the distance, the bokeh ball will measure 55mm (ish) with the 110 wide open. This is true whenever the point is far away and the ruler is in focus. larger aperture in mm == bigger bokeh balls. If you work with the aperture as 55 mm instead of f2, its easy to compare expected rendering, no crop factor required.
I found f8 on my xh1 to be phenomenal. But I’ve been informed that f8 will lead to diffraction on the new 40mp sensors. After I did the footage and edited the video. 🫠
Thanks for all the technical input Brian (apologizes for the delay in response). Well said! I just mentioned this in another comment, but ultimately I did want to just compare wide open a lot to drill the point home. But would have been a good idea in retrospect to do a true 1:1 segment with the technical specifications as you mentioned. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
@@MikeBanom f8 is quite early! i imagine that will affect landscape shooters. When does diffraction kick in on the 40mp sensors, is it earlier than f8?
@@andrewphillips2520 f8 is when it kicks in on 40mp! I found on the GFX, diffraction is a bit dependent on the lens (just like XF). Maybe around like f12 - f16.
Again, as a GFX100s user, I could easily have gotten everything right. However, I made that decision based on dynamic range, not lens performance. To sum up, I think the XF system is very high perfection.
I own X-H2 and X-S10 , with XF 56 M-II and Vltrox 75mm.... and I can say for me both do an excellent job but for my portrait work X-H2 outperform.... was saving for GFX 100S .... but after watching this ... I guess I should keep saving for something in the line of Hasselblad ....
Thanks for checking out the video! Your comment does sadden me greatly though lol. I would highly suggest renting the GFX100s and GF110 or GF80 (does fringe alot though). What I didnt really tough upon here is the sheet depth of color information you get with the GFX vs X series. Worth a rent, you might change your thoughts!
Fabtastic video Mike, it amazing if you could do a set of photos also with human portraits (maybe next video? ;)), But still, excellent job. Appreciate it.
lets talk about something, you clearly show in your comparison, that wobbles around in forums all around the world... The physical focal length has NOTHING to do with compression... these practically equiv. lenses produce an also practically equivalent amount of compression. As it depends on PERSPECTIVE only! Thank you for that ;-)
The sensor on the GFX is phenomenal, I'm with you here! When you try it out-it's really difficult to look elsewhere the same way you did before. But we just all wish it was possible to bend the laws of physics (and bank accounts). And make the whole system smaller in size and the lenses brighter at the same time, while keeping the IQ on the same level. Great in-depth video! Appreciate all the effort you put into these! Keep it up, brother!
If you figure out that bank account hack… lmk 😂 I think I should make a new video titled "thinking about upgrading to the GFX" and then say "dont try it, you'll buy it. Your bank account will thank me later". hahahaha Thanks so much for watching Alex! I always appreciate your support 🙌👊
Exactly. Money aside, it is just not possible to carry the GFX around all the time. You will need to accompany/complement it with something else. I see these two as complementing each other. If you don't have the budget though, a compact option makes much more sense.
A much anticipated comparison - thank you for your hard work! I have an interesting slightly modified question for you: would you say that the currently heavily discounted GFX 50S II at 3200 USD + GF 110mm f/2 at 2250 USD is worth it over the X-H2 + XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR at 3000 USD combined (in this isolated scenario)? :)
Thank you for watching! HMM. This is a hard one. I can't honestly advise as I never tried a 50s II. But… In short… I wish I bought the GFX50s years ago. Like maybe 2019/2020. Because it would be a bit easier to upgrade to the GFX100s… I'd already have the lenses I loved. And of course new lenses would be coming out… So perhaps… It is the move! But rumors have it that there is a new GFX100 successor coming out soon. That means a successor for the 100s a year later… you could wait it out and get a GFX100s. Lets be honest. I cant really imagine any revolutionary image upgrades from the prospective of dynamic range, color, etc. I bet upgrades will be AF based. Or at least I hope. So that being said… you really cant go wrong with a 100s now. Or maybe go with your 50s II now, upgrade to the GFX200s in the future!!! Sorry. Stream of consciousness. Hahahaha. When in doubt, remember this important saying. 'Buy once… cry once.' 😂
@@MikeBanom I recently got the 50S II with the 63 (My dream lens is the 110 f2 but where I live it is ridiculously overpriced and cannot afford it now) and have some buyer's remorse that I could have actually got for the same price a the smaller package of XH-2 + 56 + one of the new 18/23/33... I suppose I am just looking for someone to affirm my choice :D And while I miss a good bokeh now the image quality is indeed outstanding - especially loving the 65:24 perspective. I also imagine Fuji will now prioritise speed for the GFX system and hopefully some more lens variety.
It really depends on your use case, rather than the budget. The GFX system (especially with the 110mm) is HUGE. So ask yourself, are you willing to sacrifice carrying your camera in way more occasions and a faster overall experience, for this extra image quality? GFX is a slow and niche option imo. I own both a GFX and x100v and I use the x100v ~95% of the time, as I just slip it in my pocket
Hi Mike- thanks for putting the time into this. A couple of quibbles. So the out of focus rendering of the two lenses has nothing to do with “crop factor”. It is based on the physical aperture diameter, which is approx 20 % larger on the 110 f2 than on the 56/1.2. Secondly the noise comparisons you’re doing are often showing the cameras at two different enlargements. A proper comparison of noise would be both at 200%, but you are generally showing them with the subject at the same size, which given the resolution difference, means the XH2 always loses. I think the results would be much closer at the same enlargement. Not a lot of surprises here, TBH, but if Fuji scales the xH2 sensor for its upcoming GFX camera, this gives us some understanding of what to expect. I’m actually hoping they scale the Xh2s sensor, as that has potentially many benefits to the system, outside of resolution.
Thanks for taking the time to watch! Sorry, not 100% following the crop factor point. For the noise comparisons… would it be more fair if the XH2 was at 100%, and the GFX at 200%? Or both at 200? Because I suspect that would be pushing the XH2 too far? I think what you're getting at would be doing the exact same zoom level in comparison to sensor size. Which makes sense to me. But also… just say that flower image I specifically talk about the noise on… its a bit of a real world result. If I wanted that exact crop on both cameras for IG, or even a large image on a website, the GFX file would have no grain. So it would be a big win for larger megapixels no? (genuinely asking) Really really great point on scaling the GFX sensor! So true!
@@MikeBanom so the dof comparison is tricky and unfortunately if your trying to compare the lenses/systems you have to shoot from the same position, right? So you have done that here.. easy because the lenses are almost a perfect match. Now you’ve stated that the difference in DOF is related to crop factor. To show that’s not right, let’s switch the lenses.. what happens? Now the softer bokeh is on the XH2, and the sharper bokeh is on the GFX. Now this has nothing to do with the crop at all, and everything to do with the image projected by the lens (although obviously the crop is now very different). Out of focus rendering is an optical property, caused by a number of factors, but when the camera position is consistent, primarily by the physical diameter (and shape) of the aperture of the lens, and if the 56 was an f/1.0 lens it would have almost exact same OOF rendering because the diameter of the aperture would be very close to the same size as the 110mm (55mm vs 56mm, as compared to the actual lenses physical aperture diameters of 55mm vs 46.67mm).
@@MikeBanom as to the noise comparison… I get what you’re trying to do, but how your doing it is really more of a comparison of “enlargement”. Example let’s take two sensors of the same size, but with very different noise characteristics.. or Tri-X vs Pan-X for us old dudes. Here we take enlargement out of the picture, because side by sides are going to reveal one (tri-x) or the other (pan-x) to have more or less noise. If we decide then to enlarge only one of the two, well of course that one is going to suffer on the grain/noise front. So given your goal of showing the subject at the same size, to really discuss noise in the system you’d need a wider lens on the GFX, so the subject and the enlargement are both the same.
When comparing bokeh shouldn't you convert the apertures? I think a f2 in a aps-c would equivalent to a f4 in a croped medium format i gess. It certainly give a better detail in the gfx bit it whould afect the bokeh.
You are 100% correct. I did a bit of changing the aperture in this video, but I wanted to come across from a few different prospectives. Because most people will assume the 1.2 lens will have better bokeh. Gotta throw in the whole plot twist!
You are 100% correct. I did a bit of changing the aperture in this video, but I wanted to come across from a few different prospectives. Because most people will assume the 1.2 lens will have better bokeh. Gotta throw in the whole plot twist!
14:30 - Gfx @ ISO100, H2 @ ISO400? No wonder the smaller one looks so much noisier... What did I miss? In terms of DR, 5 raising shadows by 5 stops is never needed really. The X cameras can do 3 stops without problems, which normally is already quite extreme, as long as the photographer doesn't make stupid mistakes.
My takeaway from this video is that the X-H2 and the new 56mm, as I've said before, is just so fucking good for the money / size / vibe / etc. That said, the GFX "hits". I can't find another word to describe it better than "hits". It "hits". The GFX blows me away EVERY DAY. Fujifilm, again, is doing incredible things and deserve all the love.
Also, around f/5.6, the X-H2 (basically the X-Trans V HR) starts to suffer from diffraction. I try to shoot f4, f4.5 at most. I think at 15:12, it should have been "sharper" on the X-H2 but diffraction is setting in there.
OMG. I suspect you are right! I was pretty surprised in general with the 56mm… many times i had it on a tripod throughout the video and I was just surprised with it not being tack sharp at 200%. My XH1 would def be super sharp at 200mm with the XF80mm on. Some lenses are just hyper sharp. 56mm is sharp. But not compared to the XF80.
@@MikeBanom Yes, there was a technical explanation on DPReview forums about how f/5.6 is the farthest you want to stop down on the 40MP sensor. Keeping it below f/5.6 will produce the best results. Diffraction is indeed, a bitch.
So here's my 2 cents; 1) I noticed a couple of unfair comparisons, nothing big but some of the studio shots had the XH2 at 400 ISO and the GFX 100 at base, if tripoding we should be ok with base ISO for the XH2 as well, so some of the grain complaints (whilst valid) were exaggerated. 2) For APS-C, I have found Fuji in general to be quite a grainy system, even at base. I like how you illustrate this a number of times. I would not say that the GFX is mind blowingly clean at base ISO, but rather Fuji ASP-C is pretty garbage. I have found the same with my XT30II, XT4, XH2S and now you illustrate it with the XH2, they can all be unreasonably grainy at base ISO and that grain exaggerated and made worse in post processing. I have used the Pentax K-1, and that at base ISO is a lot closer to the GFX100 (even more so if deploying pixelshift). Heck even some of the Pentax APS-C offerings are WAY cleaner at base ISO than Fuji, so I don't know what that is all about. Sometimes I have a ISO 3200 from the XH2S that feels about the same grain as base 😄, so maybe that's a good thing depending on your point of view 😁 3) It's interesting that throughout all your testing you pretty much managed to evade the 'medium format look'. I wonder if it is to do with the lens choice? I know some people think Med Format is about blur and bokeh, but I find that not to be the case, and that the larger medium sensor format look is more to do with a feeling of space and depth within the image. I find this look occurs less with tele lenses and more with normal or wide primes. I have a 200/4 for example (for my 645) and I feel this always produces something easily attainted in terms of space and depth from a APS-C or FF system. So with my Pentax 645 system, if shooting with a 35mm, 45mm, and 55mm then that 'look' becomes more apparent and not always needing super fast apertures either (in fact the Pentax 645 tops out typically at f2.8 for native glass). I explain it to being a look of subject isolation and pop but not with the use of cheap tricks like oof area blur/bokeh. The person or subject pops from the scene but the background is still having details and context. I've seen 'the look' fluked on other systems plenty of times, FF, APS-C and even M43. It feels more easy to replicate with baby medium format of course, but it can happen occasionally on other systems. But here all of your sample shots, none really screamed out the 'medium format look' and I was watching the vid full screen on a 32 inch monitor, so I found that interesting. Possibly a combination of subject matter and focal length... 🤷 4) There was a fair amount of repetitive bokeh statements and comparisons, which is totally fine, but again I just don't find this to being really super relevant to the topic at hand. As you stated the 56/1.2 could perhaps get more bokeh from its minimum focus distance advantage, and if we do the math the 110/2 was always going to win due to a shallower DoF (1.2 x 1.5 = f1.8 vs 2 x 0.78 = f1.5). With my Kipon IBELUX 40mm f0.85, this roughly translates to a 60/1.2 on FF, so this would challenge the GFX to out of focus blur, but I know many FF systems would trump it anyway, full frame 85mm f1.2's are now a thing. 5) And lastly, you never touched upon the performance. I am imagining the XH2 to being a lot more capable in AF, fps and buffer (and video) than the GFX. I really don't think I want to entertain ploughing in any more money into Med Format platforms till the AF and overall performance catches up to something at an XH2S level. I'm sure within 10yrs that will be the case, but after my recent abysmal let down session with my XT4 AF performance (under the EASIEST of lighting and scenarios) I think I would be furious to have put down $9k and to have something as basic as Face/Eye Detection take forever to kick in and find an already prefocused subject etc... 🤦 It's one thing to be frustrated with a $2k plaything, quite another with a $9k thing. Thanks for doing this though, still interesting and valid observations and points made!
Thank you so much for this! Ugh. I'm pretty disappointed I didnt notice my ISO was up when doing the studio tests. I was really crunched for time that day, and idk how, but I didn't notice. I would most likely have omitted it from the video if I did notice! 100% my bad on this. Interesting with the Pentax. To be honest I have no experience with Pentax, but sounds very interesting! 3 - maybe it was the subjects I chose? Unsure. But I hear you. 4 - well said with the more bokeh on the 56mm point. Def dependent on the subject. Yep just as I thought when you said in point 3, most likely the subject matter evaded the medium format look. Makes it harder to guess 😂 5 - I def do not want to compare the AF… that would be a blood bath! But valid point. Thanks so much for watching and taking the comment to have a discussion! I appreciate you Eddy!
@@MikeBanom As I said don't worry about it, you made the point elsewhere about grain at base ISO anyway, there is a huge difference, but I think the focus should prolly err more with the fact X Mount is bad for grain rather than GFX100 being amazing (though of course it actually totally is amazin'!). I think the GFX real power comes far from social media intent. It's a commercial machine, the kind where you get paid minimum 5 figures to use it. Things like product and being able to take one shot and derive several detail shots from that one shot vs having to change to macro lenses and retake shots bla bla. It's a resolution beast and basically social media posts have very little to do with resolution appreciation. I enjoyed the review and testing, thanks.
@@SummersSnaps Although I won't argue for the social aspect of it, "being able to take one shot and derive several detail shots from that one shot" really applies to social as well. I have a 24MP camera and it's surprising how much quality I loose by cropping in a bit, even for social on the phone. Of course having 100MP just to post on social is an overkill, unless u have million of followers :P
I don't understand the point of this. They are not comparable. The Cameras have to be more similar to compare. this isn't a situation where you would take one over the other, in most cases, people would own both of these cameras as they are intended for different purposes. This test is like comparing a flat head screw driver and a Philips head screw driver.
Some would say the flat head is more versatile… LOL I'm in several GFX and XH fb groups. there is often a lot of cross over in conversation. I made it because it does come up here and there, and I thought it would be a fun video. Some XH/XT users might watch it and be interested to try a GFX after. As someone who came from an XH1 to the 100s… i would personally have loved to see a comparison like this.
Why do they have to be similar? You can't possibly know everybody's use case. To some this might be of an interest if they are contemplating between these systems. And even if someone would buy both, certainly they would have to start from one system first (unless they are extra rich, so they wouldn't even be watching this video lol), so maybe this video could help someone determine the system to get into first. The more info we have in our disposal the better I would say in general. Even for the fun part! :P
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Kudos to Fujifilm for pushing APS-C so far with the X-H2 that it takes quite a bit of zooming in to see the difference. Granted, the bokeh quality, color reproduction, and lens quality (fringing) on the GFX are amazing - as always, the last 20% of quality makes up 80% of the cost. Certainly food for though for everyone to decide how much of an IQ snob we are versus the amazing portability and versatility of the X system.
I love that phrase, IQ snob LOLLL. Thank you for that. And yeah well said. The higher end you go, the price shoots up drastically, but not really justifiably so!
Great, great video! Insane the step up in image quality and depth that you get with the GFX100S. This video is such an awesome showcase with detailed, clearly explained comparisons to geek out on for anyone looking to make the jump. Thank you for the great content, keep it coming!
Thanks so much for watching Joe! I always appreciate your support!! You know with how well this video did… you know what will be coming later down the road right? A7R5 vs GFX! I might jump into a river if the Sony does really well! 😅
I appreciate the detailed review - and 100% this is exactly the body/lens setups I'd want for both cameras. Yup, all else equal, larger sensor/more megapixels is better than smaller sensor/less megapixels. XH2 is a very strong performer, but I'd like to see Fuji speed up the ES performance to 20 fps with no crop / less rolling shutter. They'd probably have to stack it, but as it stands, I think the ES performance was the biggest letdown of the new sensor. When the GFX can hit about 10fps with little/no compromises I will likely have to go all-in.
BTW - how did you find the AF of the 110 vs. the 56/50-140 on the Fuji? I'm praying that Fuji will eventually release a portrait stunner like the 56mm, but with super fast AF motors (the 90mm is too long for indoor work, really, I like the versatility of an 85mm-equivalent).
The GF110 is on the slower side of AF. XF50-140 is pretty fast! I havent used it a ton with the XH2 but naturally out of the 3 you listed, it is def the fastest. I found the XF56 gen 2 kind of slow. But it makes sense being a 1.2 portrait lens. Thanks for watching and taking the time to leave a comment!
@@MikeBanom NP - I'll have to edit my comment since I made a few errors in it - but kudos for understanding what I was asking! I meant to say I'd like a portrait stunner that also has stunning AF performance - the 56 WR does very well, but is definitely more challenging to work with at times.
Nice comparison, althought many of the xh2 shots were shots at 400 iso with higher shutter speed while the gfx was at base iso with lower way lower ss (way more than the 1.2 and f2 différence).
We knew it was not a "fair" comparison from the start but still interesting.
But I bet between 125 and 400 iso on xh2 you got a little bit of grain added and maybe a tiny bit of details lost
Thanks for watching! You are 100% correct. Unintentional, but did happen. Biggest goof was def the studio, honestly I didnt notice till now and I am kicking myself!
Great work dude! Okay so now I need a GFX lol.
I'm sorry to do this to you. Hahahahahaha. After I tried the GFX for 3 weeks, I never looked at XF the same again. But this was before the XH2/XT5 🤷♂. Rent one 😈
@@MikeBanom I picked up an XT5 and it's awesome, especially the AF. But it would be sweet to have the GFX for my studio work.
A very interesting comparison. Thank you!
Thanks for watching as always Randy!
Awesome video Mike! All this information is so helpful!
Glad you found it helpful Juan!
Great video! I own the GFX-50s and the X-T5. I tested the GF 120mm and XF 80mm. Came to a similar conclusion. You get way more sharpness when zoomed in over 100% on MF.
Tried with the 45 extension tube as well. Another story then. If you need the extra reach for closeup Macro shots, the XF 80mm wins clearly. So both are needed if you want the best of both worlds.
Thanks for watching! Well said, fully agree. I have a ton of use with the XF80. Truly love that lens. It’s phenomenal! But medium format, nextttttt level.
Might want to shoot the 110 at 2.4 to match the 1.2 on the 56mm. matching aperture is where the aperture is the same in mm. 110/2 = 55m max aperture, the 56/1.2 = 47mm max aperture. 110/2.4 = 46mm which matches 56/1.2. Another interesting fact is that the bokeh balls at the subject plane are that size (nearly). So if you shoot a sharp picture of a ruler with a point light in the distance, the bokeh ball will measure 55mm (ish) with the 110 wide open. This is true whenever the point is far away and the ruler is in focus. larger aperture in mm == bigger bokeh balls. If you work with the aperture as 55 mm instead of f2, its easy to compare expected rendering, no crop factor required.
Same with the "f8 comparison". Why f8 on both? If you want darker, you can increase shutter. No need to handicap the apsc more.
I found f8 on my xh1 to be phenomenal. But I’ve been informed that f8 will lead to diffraction on the new 40mp sensors. After I did the footage and edited the video. 🫠
Thanks for all the technical input Brian (apologizes for the delay in response). Well said! I just mentioned this in another comment, but ultimately I did want to just compare wide open a lot to drill the point home. But would have been a good idea in retrospect to do a true 1:1 segment with the technical specifications as you mentioned. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment!
@@MikeBanom f8 is quite early! i imagine that will affect landscape shooters. When does diffraction kick in on the 40mp sensors, is it earlier than f8?
@@andrewphillips2520 f8 is when it kicks in on 40mp! I found on the GFX, diffraction is a bit dependent on the lens (just like XF). Maybe around like f12 - f16.
Again, as a GFX100s user, I could easily have gotten everything right. However, I made that decision based on dynamic range, not lens performance. To sum up, I think the XF system is very high perfection.
True
Great piece of work - love my 100s
Thanks so much Jim!
I own X-H2 and X-S10 , with XF 56 M-II and Vltrox 75mm.... and I can say for me both do an excellent job but for my portrait work X-H2 outperform.... was saving for GFX 100S .... but after watching this ... I guess I should keep saving for something in the line of Hasselblad ....
Thanks for checking out the video! Your comment does sadden me greatly though lol. I would highly suggest renting the GFX100s and GF110 or GF80 (does fringe alot though). What I didnt really tough upon here is the sheet depth of color information you get with the GFX vs X series. Worth a rent, you might change your thoughts!
I am here for this - now, I will watch this after work today, but I am here for this. The work you put into your videos is amazing dude - inspiring!!
I appreciate you Dylan! Looking forward to your thoughts afterwards.
Fabtastic video Mike, it amazing if you could do a set of photos also with human portraits (maybe next video? ;)), But still, excellent job. Appreciate it.
I typically don't do portraits, but I'll see what I can do in the future! Thanks for watching!
Great and very deep Test! I would like to see the same with the 50R vs 50S vs 100S 🙂
Or just the 50R vs 100S. The old Sensor vs the newest generation
Unfortunately I don't really hav access to anything than a 100s… but I will keep this in mind for a future video!!! I'll see what I can get.
lets talk about something, you clearly show in your comparison, that wobbles around in forums all around the world...
The physical focal length has NOTHING to do with compression... these practically equiv. lenses produce an also practically equivalent amount of compression. As it depends on PERSPECTIVE only!
Thank you for that ;-)
😎😎😎
The sensor on the GFX is phenomenal, I'm with you here! When you try it out-it's really difficult to look elsewhere the same way you did before.
But we just all wish it was possible to bend the laws of physics (and bank accounts). And make the whole system smaller in size and the lenses brighter at the same time, while keeping the IQ on the same level.
Great in-depth video! Appreciate all the effort you put into these! Keep it up, brother!
If you figure out that bank account hack… lmk 😂
I think I should make a new video titled "thinking about upgrading to the GFX" and then say "dont try it, you'll buy it. Your bank account will thank me later". hahahaha
Thanks so much for watching Alex! I always appreciate your support 🙌👊
Exactly. Money aside, it is just not possible to carry the GFX around all the time. You will need to accompany/complement it with something else. I see these two as complementing each other. If you don't have the budget though, a compact option makes much more sense.
A much anticipated comparison - thank you for your hard work! I have an interesting slightly modified question for you: would you say that the currently heavily discounted GFX 50S II at 3200 USD + GF 110mm f/2 at 2250 USD is worth it over the X-H2 + XF 56mm f/1.2 R WR at 3000 USD combined (in this isolated scenario)? :)
Thank you for watching! HMM. This is a hard one. I can't honestly advise as I never tried a 50s II. But…
In short… I wish I bought the GFX50s years ago. Like maybe 2019/2020. Because it would be a bit easier to upgrade to the GFX100s… I'd already have the lenses I loved. And of course new lenses would be coming out… So perhaps… It is the move! But rumors have it that there is a new GFX100 successor coming out soon. That means a successor for the 100s a year later… you could wait it out and get a GFX100s. Lets be honest. I cant really imagine any revolutionary image upgrades from the prospective of dynamic range, color, etc. I bet upgrades will be AF based. Or at least I hope. So that being said… you really cant go wrong with a 100s now. Or maybe go with your 50s II now, upgrade to the GFX200s in the future!!! Sorry. Stream of consciousness. Hahahaha. When in doubt, remember this important saying. 'Buy once… cry once.' 😂
@@MikeBanom I recently got the 50S II with the 63 (My dream lens is the 110 f2 but where I live it is ridiculously overpriced and cannot afford it now) and have some buyer's remorse that I could have actually got for the same price a the smaller package of XH-2 + 56 + one of the new 18/23/33... I suppose I am just looking for someone to affirm my choice :D And while I miss a good bokeh now the image quality is indeed outstanding - especially loving the 65:24 perspective. I also imagine Fuji will now prioritise speed for the GFX system and hopefully some more lens variety.
It really depends on your use case, rather than the budget. The GFX system (especially with the 110mm) is HUGE. So ask yourself, are you willing to sacrifice carrying your camera in way more occasions and a faster overall experience, for this extra image quality? GFX is a slow and niche option imo. I own both a GFX and x100v and I use the x100v ~95% of the time, as I just slip it in my pocket
Great!! Now Lightroom have AI Denoise, will interesting to compare Fuji X-H2 with AI Denoise
I dont think AI Denoise is going to fix everything. Really depends on the photo.
is the X-h2 16-bit on bit depth?? I thought it was 14-bit as specified on camera specs online
Sorry I mispoke on that one.
Hi Mike- thanks for putting the time into this. A couple of quibbles. So the out of focus rendering of the two lenses has nothing to do with “crop factor”. It is based on the physical aperture diameter, which is approx 20 % larger on the 110 f2 than on the 56/1.2. Secondly the noise comparisons you’re doing are often showing the cameras at two different enlargements. A proper comparison of noise would be both at 200%, but you are generally showing them with the subject at the same size, which given the resolution difference, means the XH2 always loses. I think the results would be much closer at the same enlargement. Not a lot of surprises here, TBH, but if Fuji scales the xH2 sensor for its upcoming GFX camera, this gives us some understanding of what to expect. I’m actually hoping they scale the Xh2s sensor, as that has potentially many benefits to the system, outside of resolution.
Thanks for taking the time to watch!
Sorry, not 100% following the crop factor point.
For the noise comparisons… would it be more fair if the XH2 was at 100%, and the GFX at 200%? Or both at 200? Because I suspect that would be pushing the XH2 too far? I think what you're getting at would be doing the exact same zoom level in comparison to sensor size. Which makes sense to me. But also… just say that flower image I specifically talk about the noise on… its a bit of a real world result. If I wanted that exact crop on both cameras for IG, or even a large image on a website, the GFX file would have no grain. So it would be a big win for larger megapixels no? (genuinely asking)
Really really great point on scaling the GFX sensor! So true!
@@MikeBanom so the dof comparison is tricky and unfortunately if your trying to compare the lenses/systems you have to shoot from the same position, right? So you have done that here.. easy because the lenses are almost a perfect match. Now you’ve stated that the difference in DOF is related to crop factor. To show that’s not right, let’s switch the lenses.. what happens? Now the softer bokeh is on the XH2, and the sharper bokeh is on the GFX. Now this has nothing to do with the crop at all, and everything to do with the image projected by the lens (although obviously the crop is now very different). Out of focus rendering is an optical property, caused by a number of factors, but when the camera position is consistent, primarily by the physical diameter (and shape) of the aperture of the lens, and if the 56 was an f/1.0 lens it would have almost exact same OOF rendering because the diameter of the aperture would be very close to the same size as the 110mm (55mm vs 56mm, as compared to the actual lenses physical aperture diameters of 55mm vs 46.67mm).
@@MikeBanom as to the noise comparison… I get what you’re trying to do, but how your doing it is really more of a comparison of “enlargement”. Example let’s take two sensors of the same size, but with very different noise characteristics.. or Tri-X vs Pan-X for us old dudes. Here we take enlargement out of the picture, because side by sides are going to reveal one (tri-x) or the other (pan-x) to have more or less noise. If we decide then to enlarge only one of the two, well of course that one is going to suffer on the grain/noise front. So given your goal of showing the subject at the same size, to really discuss noise in the system you’d need a wider lens on the GFX, so the subject and the enlargement are both the same.
Correction the X-H2 is a 14 bit camera; not a 16bit.
You right
When comparing bokeh shouldn't you convert the apertures? I think a f2 in a aps-c would equivalent to a f4 in a croped medium format i gess. It certainly give a better detail in the gfx bit it whould afect the bokeh.
You are 100% correct. I did a bit of changing the aperture in this video, but I wanted to come across from a few different prospectives. Because most people will assume the 1.2 lens will have better bokeh. Gotta throw in the whole plot twist!
You are 100% correct. I did a bit of changing the aperture in this video, but I wanted to come across from a few different prospectives. Because most people will assume the 1.2 lens will have better bokeh. Gotta throw in the whole plot twist!
14:30 - Gfx @ ISO100, H2 @ ISO400? No wonder the smaller one looks so much noisier... What did I miss? In terms of DR, 5 raising shadows by 5 stops is never needed really. The X cameras can do 3 stops without problems, which normally is already quite extreme, as long as the photographer doesn't make stupid mistakes.
My takeaway from this video is that the X-H2 and the new 56mm, as I've said before, is just so fucking good for the money / size / vibe / etc.
That said, the GFX "hits". I can't find another word to describe it better than "hits". It "hits". The GFX blows me away EVERY DAY. Fujifilm, again, is doing incredible things and deserve all the love.
Also, around f/5.6, the X-H2 (basically the X-Trans V HR) starts to suffer from diffraction. I try to shoot f4, f4.5 at most. I think at 15:12, it should have been "sharper" on the X-H2 but diffraction is setting in there.
Perfectly said sir! 🫡
OMG. I suspect you are right! I was pretty surprised in general with the 56mm… many times i had it on a tripod throughout the video and I was just surprised with it not being tack sharp at 200%. My XH1 would def be super sharp at 200mm with the XF80mm on. Some lenses are just hyper sharp. 56mm is sharp. But not compared to the XF80.
@@MikeBanom Yes, there was a technical explanation on DPReview forums about how f/5.6 is the farthest you want to stop down on the 40MP sensor. Keeping it below f/5.6 will produce the best results. Diffraction is indeed, a bitch.
@@oxeneers that is freakin INSANE!
So here's my 2 cents;
1) I noticed a couple of unfair comparisons, nothing big but some of the studio shots had the XH2 at 400 ISO and the GFX 100 at base, if tripoding we should be ok with base ISO for the XH2 as well, so some of the grain complaints (whilst valid) were exaggerated.
2) For APS-C, I have found Fuji in general to be quite a grainy system, even at base. I like how you illustrate this a number of times. I would not say that the GFX is mind blowingly clean at base ISO, but rather Fuji ASP-C is pretty garbage. I have found the same with my XT30II, XT4, XH2S and now you illustrate it with the XH2, they can all be unreasonably grainy at base ISO and that grain exaggerated and made worse in post processing.
I have used the Pentax K-1, and that at base ISO is a lot closer to the GFX100 (even more so if deploying pixelshift). Heck even some of the Pentax APS-C offerings are WAY cleaner at base ISO than Fuji, so I don't know what that is all about. Sometimes I have a ISO 3200 from the XH2S that feels about the same grain as base 😄, so maybe that's a good thing depending on your point of view 😁
3) It's interesting that throughout all your testing you pretty much managed to evade the 'medium format look'. I wonder if it is to do with the lens choice? I know some people think Med Format is about blur and bokeh, but I find that not to be the case, and that the larger medium sensor format look is more to do with a feeling of space and depth within the image. I find this look occurs less with tele lenses and more with normal or wide primes. I have a 200/4 for example (for my 645) and I feel this always produces something easily attainted in terms of space and depth from a APS-C or FF system.
So with my Pentax 645 system, if shooting with a 35mm, 45mm, and 55mm then that 'look' becomes more apparent and not always needing super fast apertures either (in fact the Pentax 645 tops out typically at f2.8 for native glass). I explain it to being a look of subject isolation and pop but not with the use of cheap tricks like oof area blur/bokeh. The person or subject pops from the scene but the background is still having details and context. I've seen 'the look' fluked on other systems plenty of times, FF, APS-C and even M43. It feels more easy to replicate with baby medium format of course, but it can happen occasionally on other systems. But here all of your sample shots, none really screamed out the 'medium format look' and I was watching the vid full screen on a 32 inch monitor, so I found that interesting. Possibly a combination of subject matter and focal length... 🤷
4) There was a fair amount of repetitive bokeh statements and comparisons, which is totally fine, but again I just don't find this to being really super relevant to the topic at hand. As you stated the 56/1.2 could perhaps get more bokeh from its minimum focus distance advantage, and if we do the math the 110/2 was always going to win due to a shallower DoF (1.2 x 1.5 = f1.8 vs 2 x 0.78 = f1.5). With my Kipon IBELUX 40mm f0.85, this roughly translates to a 60/1.2 on FF, so this would challenge the GFX to out of focus blur, but I know many FF systems would trump it anyway, full frame 85mm f1.2's are now a thing.
5) And lastly, you never touched upon the performance. I am imagining the XH2 to being a lot more capable in AF, fps and buffer (and video) than the GFX. I really don't think I want to entertain ploughing in any more money into Med Format platforms till the AF and overall performance catches up to something at an XH2S level. I'm sure within 10yrs that will be the case, but after my recent abysmal let down session with my XT4 AF performance (under the EASIEST of lighting and scenarios) I think I would be furious to have put down $9k and to have something as basic as Face/Eye Detection take forever to kick in and find an already prefocused subject etc... 🤦 It's one thing to be frustrated with a $2k plaything, quite another with a $9k thing.
Thanks for doing this though, still interesting and valid observations and points made!
Thank you so much for this!
Ugh. I'm pretty disappointed I didnt notice my ISO was up when doing the studio tests. I was really crunched for time that day, and idk how, but I didn't notice. I would most likely have omitted it from the video if I did notice! 100% my bad on this.
Interesting with the Pentax. To be honest I have no experience with Pentax, but sounds very interesting!
3 - maybe it was the subjects I chose? Unsure. But I hear you.
4 - well said with the more bokeh on the 56mm point. Def dependent on the subject. Yep just as I thought when you said in point 3, most likely the subject matter evaded the medium format look. Makes it harder to guess 😂
5 - I def do not want to compare the AF… that would be a blood bath! But valid point.
Thanks so much for watching and taking the comment to have a discussion! I appreciate you Eddy!
@@MikeBanom As I said don't worry about it, you made the point elsewhere about grain at base ISO anyway, there is a huge difference, but I think the focus should prolly err more with the fact X Mount is bad for grain rather than GFX100 being amazing (though of course it actually totally is amazin'!).
I think the GFX real power comes far from social media intent. It's a commercial machine, the kind where you get paid minimum 5 figures to use it. Things like product and being able to take one shot and derive several detail shots from that one shot vs having to change to macro lenses and retake shots bla bla. It's a resolution beast and basically social media posts have very little to do with resolution appreciation.
I enjoyed the review and testing, thanks.
@@SummersSnaps Although I won't argue for the social aspect of it, "being able to take one shot and derive several detail shots from that one shot" really applies to social as well. I have a 24MP camera and it's surprising how much quality I loose by cropping in a bit, even for social on the phone. Of course having 100MP just to post on social is an overkill, unless u have million of followers :P
@@unstanic That's actually true, valid point. It all depends on where the image ends up for client work and the standards required.
it's not correct to open files in lr, onle c1 can show difference
Not correct? I'm sure you could find a better way to word this / explain.
I don't understand the point of this. They are not comparable. The Cameras have to be more similar to compare. this isn't a situation where you would take one over the other, in most cases, people would own both of these cameras as they are intended for different purposes. This test is like comparing a flat head screw driver and a Philips head screw driver.
Some would say the flat head is more versatile… LOL
I'm in several GFX and XH fb groups. there is often a lot of cross over in conversation. I made it because it does come up here and there, and I thought it would be a fun video. Some XH/XT users might watch it and be interested to try a GFX after. As someone who came from an XH1 to the 100s… i would personally have loved to see a comparison like this.
Why do they have to be similar? You can't possibly know everybody's use case. To some this might be of an interest if they are contemplating between these systems. And even if someone would buy both, certainly they would have to start from one system first (unless they are extra rich, so they wouldn't even be watching this video lol), so maybe this video could help someone determine the system to get into first.
The more info we have in our disposal the better I would say in general. Even for the fun part! :P
@@unstanic 🙏🙏🙏