SL3 vs. Fuji GFX 100 II

[John Smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m currently on the pre-order list for an SL3. I am considering buying the new Fuji GFX 100 II for the new tilt/shift lenses. Anyone have any experience in comparing the two cameras?

[hdmesa]

10 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I’m currently on the pre-order list for an SL3. I am considering buying the new Fuji GFX 100 II for the new tilt/shift lenses. Anyone have any experience in comparing the two cameras?

If you're set on tilt/shift, I'd get the GFX. The GF 30 TS is hard to find in stock, though.

Saw this on FM forums the other day, which could add a perspective:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1869381/

The SL3 60mp sensor is essentially a 35mm crop from the GFX 100mp sensor – same base Sony silicon with different sensor cover glass and toppings. The differences in how the RAW files look are minimal and mostly driven by what profile you assign the images in post. 

Do you plan to adapt M lenses to either? The SL3 would be the clear winner there. The GFX cover glass is much thicker and is spaced away from the sensor, meaning you may see smeared corners with wide angle M lenses even when the images are cropped to 35mm size.

[John Smith]

That was helpful. Thanks.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

The SL3 60mp sensor is essentially a 35mm crop from the GFX 100mp sensor – same base Sony silicon with different sensor cover glass and toppings.

For those who care: The 44x33 100MP sensor is a 4-shot stitch (link). I do not think that the 36x24 60MP sensor is stitched.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have both:

The GFX is larger and noticeably heavier.

The GFX EVF is the best there currently is.

The IBIS is better on the SL3.

IQ is better on the GFX, even cropped, if you shoot 16 bit on the GFX. It's not a massive difference though. But there's a definite difference to 100MP. The SL3 may be best in class in small format but it's not completely matching the larger sensor.

Any lens on the GFX out resolves any lens on the SL3. The SL APO's have the best CA control though.

The GFX AF is as good as the SL3 (possibly *slightly* better in a few cases).

The SL3 has many more lens options and more reach.

The joystick, menus and handling are better on the SL3.

For handheld use I prefer the SL3. For tripod use probably the GFX. If it were purely for the tilt shift lenses I'd go the GFX. For general shooting the SL3, for sure.

To me their use cases are different.

Gordon

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

For those who care: The 44x33 100MP sensor is a 4-shot stitch (link). I do not think that the 36x24 60MP sensor is stitched.

Could be why no one has seen any bifurcation with the M11M.

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tilt and shift lenses are built for a special use case and are quite an investment.  They are slow, heavy, and awesome. But if architectural photography and similar projects aren't what you want to throw 10k at (camera and 30mm lens), you will be better off with something else. 

I‘d follow the lenses I want to use and buy the camera accordingly. APO SL lenses = SL series camera, GFX lenses = GFX camera, M lenses = M camera. 

Leica promotes their SL as M lenses compatible, which it kind of is (at least considerable better than Sony cameras). However, M lenses still work better on M cameras.

That said, the GFX system is all about (relatively) affordable maximal resolution. If you don't need that the SL3 is the more practical investment (and still resolving tremendously), especially when leveraging the exceptional rendering abilities of the APO primes.

My perspective is business-oriented. If you have the cash and don't expect an ROI, I’d get both because the tilt-shift experience of the GFX system is singular. The same can be said about the SL3 and the 35mm APO prime.

BTW (and off-topic), proper printing is in my experience the best investment to get the most out of your photography. 

[wjdrijfhout]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 

The IBIS is better on the SL3.

 

Gordon

That’s interesting, is that across all situations, or in specific cases where it matters most? GF100II claims 8 stops while SL3 claims 5 stops…

[BWColor]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

BTW (and off-topic), proper printing is in my experience the best investment to get the most out of your photography. 

I don’t want to push this thread in another direction, but I have to ask, in your opinion, what is proper printing?

I opted for the X2D and three lenses vs SL3/lens flexibility and am happy with my decision, but my special need was Monochrom and for that I bought the M11M.  Buy the Fujifilm  if shift/tilt and architectural photography is your thing vs. a curiosity.  The mention of printing is an important one, what is your end product?

Edited August 20, 2024 by BWColor
‘?’ Not ‘.’

[wjdrijfhout]

Interesting question. I own the original GFX100 and even after updating my SL2 to SL3, still considering upgrading the GFX as well. The 100MP files from these cameras are really addictive. And with the GFX100II being so much more portable, the number of use-cases has definitely increased, also hand-held. And for my hands the GFX100II has a better grip/handling than the SL3.

The SL-system is more versatile for sure, but the GFX system is pretty complete as well.

[JohnathanLovm]

I had few moments with GFX100 II, while the GFX’s image is superior than SL, for portrait I prefer Leica’s skin rendering. And the SL’s AF speed is slightly faster than GFX. The only complaint I had with SL is lack of flash support. 

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!

[elmars]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb BWColor:

The mention of printing is an important one, what is your end product?

When it comes to the printer, the manufacturer plays almost no role. Canon and Epson deliver the same excellent quality with their fine art inkjet printers.

The choice of paper has a more decisive influence. The surface (matt/glossy) influences the image impression, the type of paper the feel. Both together give the photo an incomparably more beautiful expression than a screen could. 

[Jon Warwick]

On the doorstep of my local store, I briefly tried out the SL3 (+ SL 35mm APO Summicron) versus my GFX100, and decided to stick with the Fuji for an EVF camera;

But mainly - I own the original GFX100S (+ recently launched GF 55mm) and M11 (+ APO Lanthars), and have compared them very closely, so perhaps can proxy a view on image quality;

as an aside, I previously used the GF 50mm lens on the GFX, which keeps the package compact for medium format; but in terms of image quality, the new GF 55mm has been a really nice upgrade, and is flawless across the frame, and (importantly to me) seems to produce much more "life" to the detail;

I recently took identical landscape images on a tripod, base ISOs, f 5.6, with both the GFX100 and M11, and been comparing the files closely to c 45" wide apiece;

with good post processing (eg, I use Enhance function in ACR), the difference in recorded fine detail at that print size can be much, much smaller than one might think for some images despite the 60mp vs 100mp;

but - resolution aside - i tend to find the 100mp camera typically benefits from less moire, less false color, lower noise, and greater dynamic range;

again ....for me, this often depends on individual scenes. Sometimes i prefer the image quality off the GFX, sometimes I prefer it off the M11. It's less clear cut than I'd have thought;

one benefit of the SL3 or M11 is ability to use many lenses to create a different look, from vintage to super-sharp modern. The GFX is more a "one look wonder" (ie, very sharp) in terms of rendering with its native GF lenses, including the new T/S lenses;

it's not inconceivable that i go down a similar route to BWColor, ie, IMHO the most unique and beautiful image quality from any Leica I've tried (which is pretty much all of them) is off the Monochroms, and I could see myself simplifying it to just medium format (in my case via the GFX) for color prints, and M11M for B&W.

Edited August 20, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[BWColor]

10 minutes ago, elmars said:

The choice of paper has a more decisive influence. The surface (matt/glossy) influences the image impression, the type of paper the feel. Both together give the photo an incomparably more beautiful expression than a screen could. 

Well said and the end product should be a consideration when buying into a system.  Also, your need for portability might be considered.  100Mpix is overkill when considering what most of us do with our images, but the ability to crop, produce a panoramic at a rather large size has been a real plus for me.  Great colors and a pigment printer are an amazing combination.  Lastly, high end fast lenses that aren’t huge, or heavy combined with great real life IBIS opens up a lot of shooting possibilities.  My X2D provided these advantages for me.  My M11M with monochrome sensor resolution and amazing high iso performance provides the same flexibility.  Both systems are relatively small and light.  Both systems, especially with an APO lens mounted on the monochrom, provide similar resolution.  Neither have long telephotos, or tilt/shift lenses (at least with my lens selection).  What I mentioned above were my considerations when choosing a system.  Buy the Fuji if architectural subjects are your thing.

[Smudgerer]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

BTW (and off-topic), proper printing is in my experience the best investment to get the most out of your photography. 

Agree.......

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, wjdrijfhout said:

That’s interesting, is that across all situations, or in specific cases where it matters most? GF100II claims 8 stops while SL3 claims 5 stops…

Claims vs reality...... In use they're very close with the SL3 generally giving slightly better results, likely due to the lower resolution. X2D is better than both. GFX100II is much improved over the 100S I also have though.

Gordon

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, BWColor said:

I don’t want to push this thread in another direction, but I have to ask, in your opinion, what is proper printing?

Proper printing produces the best possible print of an image that will shine to the highest standards in any museum. It's like proper photography. Why should I buy super expensive gear if the subject, the framing, the intent, and whatnot are subpar? Why should I purchase brilliant lenses and high-end sensors if my prints will be printed on cheap dye printers and cheap glossy papers, or not all?

The printer can be any fine art printer from Epson or Canon with a fine art printing ink set. However, the paper should be brightener-free, museum-grade, and of the highest quality. Hahnemühle Photo Rag is arguably the de facto standard for fine art inkjet prints. There are alternatives, but nothing better (again, arguably).

A brand new 44" printer from Canon with 2 litres of ink costs less than a used 35mm Summicron APO M lens. With the budget of a GFX plus a shift and tilt 30mm lens, you can purchase said printers and add over 100m of the finest Photo Rag paper 36" wide. 

Technically speaking (leaving out the subject, which is meaningless), in my experience, a sensor's resolution alone does not make a great print. It isn't even an essential factor.  It's colour separation, the image's texture (necessary for the sharpness), and the juice in the shadows that matter most. Whites that match the paper's whites are another factor. Then, of course, the paper itself and the presentation. 

Of course, your mileage may vary, and you may prefer to out-resolve the printer and the viewer's eye. An argument can be made that a 100MP sensor makes sense for images whose intent is to baffle the viewer with a killing resolution, typically 300 PIP at book-reading viewing distance. But even then, the image must be considerably large, clearly way beyond the 1.30 m-long edge. At a regular viewing distance of 60 cm or so, the image will be over 70" long. Please note that this only applies to young folks not wearing glasses 😉.

[John Smith]

Thank you for the comments. They have all been helpful.

Edited August 20, 2024 by John Smith

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

but - resolution aside - i tend to find the 100mp camera typically benefits from less moire, less false color, lower noise, and greater dynamic range;

Note that greater dynamic range is only possible if you give the GFX more light, which typically means longer exposures. In situations where you are limited with shutter speed, e.g., handheld at higher ISOs, the DR advantage of MF cameras dissipates as long as you shoot with an equivalent DOF.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Photoworks]

17 hours ago, John Smith said:

I’m currently on the pre-order list for an SL3. I am considering buying the new Fuji GFX 100 II for the new tilt/shift lenses. Anyone have any experience in comparing the two cameras?

the question is what are you trying to shoot?
If your shooting requires GF30mmF5.6 , that is what I would get. it's supposed to be a really good optic.

the Shift options for SL3 are all adapted lenses, mostly from Canon and Schneider PC. You could find a wider range of lenses on the Canon mount.

Fuji offers only 30 and 100mm. 30 is probably 24mm in full frame. It is popular but sometimes/often you need wider.

A college of mine was using the Canon cameras and the GFX side by side and went back to Canon. for him, the fuji had too many issues with the software remote and limits on shifting lenses.

I use a bunch of tilt-shift lenses and they work fine on my camera, the SL2-3 actually adapts Canon lenses better than other brands by using the micro prism on the sensor.

The TS-E lenses from Canon don't give you the detail of a Leica SL zoom or APO lens.

GF30 is $4000 and canon lens are $2000