GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[Mr.Q]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The equivalent on the X1D would be the 80/1.9 combo, which would be similar in weight.

I don't think rangefinders should be compared in this discussion.

[tom0511]

In my experience AF speed with the S007 is quite fast, and in combination with the OVF the camera I feel very well connected to the subject. There are two things I struggle with sometimes: 1)only center AF 2) sometimes problems with AF-accurancy. If I had not problem 2) sometimes, this would be my preferred system in terms of IQ

The x1dII is slower but I find it pretty accurate. It works also for kids or pet images, but only as long as no major movement is included.

The SL2 is fast and accurate in S-AF. Even for slower moving things S-AF often works. I don't really can get C-AF work really useful. I can use this camera for a large part of my images including playing kids etc. I am impressed how good the IQ compares to small medium format.

I love the color of the Leica and also of the Hasselblad. They show a certain power and saturation without looking overcooked.

I also love the simplicity (menus, reduced number of buttons, quick menue) and handling and feel of both the Hase and the Leicas.

So my main fear switching to Fuji would be:

Would I miss simple and intuitive user interface?

Would I miss the overall solid "feel" of the Hasse or Leica counterparts (cameras I "want" to take in my hands")

Would I miss anything in regards of color?

Would the 100MP slow down further the image processing?

However if I didn't have those cameras I would very well take a deep look / check out the Fuji 100 before making a decision. I did check out the 50gfx and at that. time, even though AF was faster than x1d and the images were great, I found the buttons placed all over and found the camera and lenses felt "hollow" (Which has nothing to do with reliability or IQ). If I will have the chance to test run a GFX100 I am interested to do so.

For me right now I use the SL2 a lot, because it seems like a very good compromise between speed and IQ, and it fits my hands well. For small package I bring the M10r more often now and its also impressive how such a small package can deliver. And its cool to have the same menu structure/logic/UI in those cameras.

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

17 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

The equivalent on the X1D would be the 80/1.9 combo, which would be similar in weight.

I don't think rangefinders should be compared in this discussion.

That was my fault. I brought up the AF speed of the X1D. Mind you, the M10R and a 50APo or even 50 Summilux is an incredible system IQ wise.

Gordon

[aksclix]

14 hours ago, tom0511 said:

In my experience AF speed with the S007 is quite fast, and in combination with the OVF the camera I feel very well connected to the subject. There are two things I struggle with sometimes: 1)only center AF 2) sometimes problems with AF-accurancy. If I had not problem 2) sometimes, this would be my preferred system in terms of IQ

The x1dII is slower but I find it pretty accurate. It works also for kids or pet images, but only as long as no major movement is included.

The SL2 is fast and accurate in S-AF. Even for slower moving things S-AF often works. I don't really can get C-AF work really useful. I can use this camera for a large part of my images including playing kids etc. I am impressed how good the IQ compares to small medium format.

I love the color of the Leica and also of the Hasselblad. They show a certain power and saturation without looking overcooked.

I also love the simplicity (menus, reduced number of buttons, quick menue) and handling and feel of both the Hase and the Leicas.

So my main fear switching to Fuji would be:

Would I miss simple and intuitive user interface?

Would I miss the overall solid "feel" of the Hasse or Leica counterparts (cameras I "want" to take in my hands")

Would I miss anything in regards of color?

Would the 100MP slow down further the image processing?

However if I didn't have those cameras I would very well take a deep look / check out the Fuji 100 before making a decision. I did check out the 50gfx and at that. time, even though AF was faster than x1d and the images were great, I found the buttons placed all over and found the camera and lenses felt "hollow" (Which has nothing to do with reliability or IQ). If I will have the chance to test run a GFX100 I am interested to do so.

For me right now I use the SL2 a lot, because it seems like a very good compromise between speed and IQ, and it fits my hands well. For small package I bring the M10r more often now and its also impressive how such a small package can deliver. And its cool to have the same menu structure/logic/UI in those cameras.

 

You WOULD miss those that you worry about.. but you’ll also gain a lot.. gfx menus are NOT simple.. gfx IQ is unbeatable.. gfx has some wonderful lenses!! processing is a breeze with my latest Apple mini 16G with M1 chip.. it’s not expensive.. comes at a 1000 bucks..

except the 250mm lens other lenses are not so heavy..

Leica S + 70f2.5 looks very similar in size and weight to GFX 100s + 80 f1.7

Edited April 11, 2021 by aksclix

[frame-it]

13 hours ago, aksclix said:

gfx menus are NOT simple

once its setup properly along with the custom buttons, one rarely has to dive in again

i used this to originally setup my 50R, would be similar for the other models too

https://www.prophotonut.com/2018/10/24/fujifilm-gfx50s-and-gfx50r-settings-and-30000-frame-review/

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, aksclix said:

gfx IQ is unbeatable..

Yes and no. It's good value for money, but its IQ is behind larger format digiback systems from PhaseOne and Hasselblad (H system). It will also have a hard time beating the Leica S3 in many situations. The sensor size is similar, the GFX has a more pixels, but the S3 has better lenses. You can argue either way (there are lots of threads about that, here and elsewhere), but the fact that it's such a fierce argument tells you that neither system is "unbeatable."

The only system that's "unbeatable" is 8x10 film, in my opinion, and only if you ignore larger film and plate systems. It all boils-down to knowing what you want to achieve with your photography.

[Succisa75]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Yes and no. It's good value for money, but its IQ is behind larger format digiback systems from PhaseOne and Hasselblad (H system). It will also have a hard time beating the Leica S3 in many situations. The sensor size is similar, the GFX has a more pixels, but the S3 has better lenses. You can argue either way (there are lots of threads about that, here and elsewhere), but the fact that it's such a fierce argument tells you that neither system is "unbeatable."

The only system that's "unbeatable" is 8x10 film, in my opinion, and only if you ignore larger film and plate systems. It all boils-down to knowing what you want to achieve with your photography.

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

[bags27]

Enjoying the Fuji GFX R, which I bought originally to scan MF negatives, but it turns out to be a great walk-around camera. Feels far more comfortable than the SL2, which I've passed on several times. Ignore actual weight comparisons: it's how you respond to it intuitively. And I'm getting used to the horrible UI. After all, lots of people use Fuji, so I guess I can, too. So, likely a 100s buyer eventually, but is there a cooler camera anywhere than the Hassy 907?

But to my mind, no digital camera on earth renders like the Leica S. The mixture of colors and ever so slightly softer images looks so much more psychologically real to me than any other digital kit. There are too many challenges with that system: cost of the body (new); concern for its future (and possible transition to mirrorless), motors in the lenses. It's sort of like the fixed lens Foveon cameras: the most beautiful digital images but so many obstacles to getting them.

 

[SrMi]

56 minutes ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

The 100MP GFX sensors provide true 16bit data (this is not called bit-rate, BTW). However, the 16-bits do not seem to be useful in GFX cameras, i.e., it does not bring any benefits compared to 14-bit sensors. The main advantage that 100 vs. 50MP brings is reduced aliasing. 
I prefer the output of my S3 to the output of my GFX100S. Of course, others will disagree, but it is not all about the age of the design or technical specifications.

 

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Yes and no. It's good value for money, but its IQ is behind larger format digiback systems from PhaseOne and Hasselblad (H system). It will also have a hard time beating the Leica S3 in many situations. The sensor size is similar, the GFX has a more pixels, but the S3 has better lenses. You can argue either way (there are lots of threads about that, here and elsewhere), but the fact that it's such a fierce argument tells you that neither system is "unbeatable."

The only system that's "unbeatable" is 8x10 film, in my opinion, and only if you ignore larger film and plate systems. It all boils-down to knowing what you want to achieve with your photography.

Of course..  everything is subjective..

and, you can’t compare 54x40 sensors to 44x33.. it’s pretty much like comparing FF to MF in a way.

anyway, to sum up.. I’d still consider it “unbeatable” among its comparable peers.. once we get to a certain level of quality, we’re just splitting hairs to argue over which is better over which.. the ultimate point is that IQ of GFX 100s isn’t a “compromise” when you choose this over the others.. each system has its own pros and cons.. when it comes to IQ, none of the options are going to be a compromise really.. 

I think a few phaseone owners have dropped their kits to get the gfx? The difference is negligible apparently? I only know what gfx is capable of.. 

[aksclix]

56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The 100MP GFX sensors provide true 16bit data (this is not called bit-rate, BTW). However, the 16-bits do not seem to be useful in GFX cameras, i.e., it does not bring any benefits compared to 14-bit sensors. The main advantage that 100 vs. 50MP brings is reduced aliasing. 
I prefer the output of my S3 to the output of my GFX100S. Of course, others will disagree, but it is not all about the age of the design or technical specifications.

 

Let me put it this way, if the S3 were priced at say $10k then perhaps there maybe more takers.. is the S3 worth 3 times the price of gfx 100s? I believe NOT..
 

The ultimate question anybody would ask is 

at $6000, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much do I like the output of GFX 100s?

and at $20,000, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much do I like the output of Leica S3?

let’s include decimals for more clarity 😌

 

[aksclix]

2 hours ago, frame-it said:

once its setup properly along with the custom buttons, one rarely has to dive in again

i used this to originally setup my 50R, would be similar for the other models too

https://www.prophotonut.com/2018/10/24/fujifilm-gfx50s-and-gfx50r-settings-and-30000-frame-review/

Yes, I also have my “My menu” setup and a few customizations but still the original menu is second worse to Sony I think  Panasonic also has complex menus but they at least have touch screen navigation 

[setuporg]

The S lenses do not need "updating."  Compared to a rather eclectic menagerie of the GF ones, they are all rendering in the same inimical way.  I'll take the S rendering over anything else any day.  With time they'll be some of the most sought-after cinema lenses.  Shooting video on SL2[-S] with them would be amazing.  When S3 drops in price it will be an excellent extension for the S kits.  You cannot really compare it to GFX/XCD, it's a nice pursuit akin to using a 907x with a V system, which is not made anymore but has its fans.

Edited April 11, 2021 by setuporg

[Guest JMF]

34 minutes ago, setuporg said:

The S lenses do not need "updating."  Compared to a rather eclectic menagerie of the GF ones, they are all rendering in the same way.  With time they'll be some of the most sought-after cinema lenses.  Shooting video on SL2[-S] with them would be amazing.  

It'd be nice to use  S lenses on movies if they had a manual iris ring . Let's hope  for the day when  the S line lenses will be rehoused with cine mode specs !

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by JMF

[LD_50]

3 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

If you shot with an S3 and the S lenses and someone told you it was 16 bit and the lenses were all new, would the IQ leave you believing they were wrong? I don’t think those specs are relevant when comparing to the GFX when the quality of the S system is as high as it is.

I have not shot with the S3 but have briefly tested the S007. The price is the only thing that kept me from buying at the time. If I were to get into the S system today it would need to be lower priced and include an EVF. 

If handed an opportunity to shoot with Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, and Canon with no spec sheets at all and no prices, just a similar set of lenses from each, I wonder what the choices would be. I bet the resolution, the bit depth, a lot of specs would be far less important than they are now. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

5 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

In this prosumer medium format market I do agree it’s the best IQ. Phase One does top it when it comes to dynamic range and true 16bit files. There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit, but in terms of Hasselblad H series it’s a really close call. 
 

No disrespect to the S series, but it’s not there with the 100 or 100s. Lenses are older and haven’t been updated, sensor doesn’t have the bit rate of the newer sensors. From my experience it produces beautiful colors and great IQ, but a bit behind the 100. I would compare it more to the 50R and 50S. 
 

Reality is this group of cameras IQ wise is really good, and if you aren’t printing you will only notice the difference in the way you can work with the files in post  

I don't have an S3 (still have my S2 and 007), but I have used one. Not being able to compare directly to the S3 files makes a comparison difficult but I was blown away by the S3 files, when compared to the X1D. If it was in a better body, I would have one. No, it won't pull the detail of a 100MP sensor, but those files were glorious.

And I also have to disagree on the S lenses. Still class leading, except the zoom.

Gordon

[frame-it]

7 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

There is debate if the GFX system is true 16 bit,

the GFX100 has 16 bit files, open them in raw digger and check the histogram range..old news.

dont know about the 100s

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

the GFX100 has 16 bit files, open them in raw digger and check the histogram range..old news.

dont know about the 100s

The 102MP sensor is true 16 bit. So the 100 and 100S.

The older 51MP sensor was a 14 bit sensor in a 16 bit wrapper. So the 50R/S, X1D, 645Z etc are 14 bit. But this sensor somehow still managed to have DR that competes with the newer sensor despite the lower bit count.

personally I think a lot of people place too much importance in bit depth and it's relationship to DR. There's so much more going on for real world DR than bit depth alone.

Gordon

[Succisa75]

5 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The 102MP sensor is true 16 bit. So the 100 and 100S.

The older 51MP sensor was a 14 bit sensor in a 16 bit wrapper. So the 50R/S, X1D, 645Z etc are 14 bit. But this sensor somehow still managed to have DR that competes with the newer sensor despite the lower bit count.

personally I think a lot of people place too much importance in bit depth and it's relationship to DR. There's so much more going on for real world DR than bit depth alone.

Gordon

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Succisa75]

4 hours ago, LD_50 said:

If you shot with an S3 and the S lenses and someone told you it was 16 bit and the lenses were all new, would the IQ leave you believing they were wrong? I don’t think those specs are relevant when comparing to the GFX when the quality of the S system is as high as it is.

I have not shot with the S3 but have briefly tested the S007. The price is the only thing that kept me from buying at the time. If I were to get into the S system today it would need to be lower priced and include an EVF. 

If handed an opportunity to shoot with Leica, Fuji, Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, and Canon with no spec sheets at all and no prices, just a similar set of lenses from each, I wonder what the choices would be. I bet the resolution, the bit depth, a lot of specs would be far less important than they are now. 

It’s not so much about the end result as it is working with the files. For example If you use files from a phase one you will see the difference. End results from most cameras are hard to decipher as we are in an era most cameras are really good, but it’s working with the files that you see the differences. 
 

One of the reasons photographers buy into MF is not just detail but working with the files.