DaveV Posted March 20 Share #41 Posted March 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) The specs as they announced today look solid. It is an f/4 lens (dof equivalent of a f/3.2 on FF). While I do use my Q3 for creative dof shots, my bigger concern. Is light gathering and ultimately image noise from high ISO as a reult. I do a fair amount of shooting in low/night light and when I couple the 1.7 Suumilux lens with the farastic low light performance of the Q3, it is a really great camera for those uses, so while Im intrigued by the GFX100RF, Im not convinced it would give me the results I'm looking. Im going to sit tight and wait to see some results from this camera in various conditions before I give it a serious look. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Hi DaveV, Take a look here Leica Q3 or Fujifilm GFX 100RF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jon Warwick Posted March 20 Share #42 Posted March 20 18 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said: 28mm equivalent is unappealing to me, but it's cool to see them doing something different. I hope it is successful enough that the consider doing a more normal lens version. Yes, 28mm equiv definitely not for me; a 40-50mm equivalent, that would be impeccable for my needs, a Q43 competitor in effect 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 20 Share #43 Posted March 20 2 hours ago, Smogg said: I watched the GFX100RF presentation and I love the ergonomics. This is how crop mode should have been implemented in Q3. I agree that crop mode on the Q is not well-implemented. I use crop modes a lot to control AF and metering, so cycling through the frames only in one direction (larger to smaller) is a pain, and repeated pressing of a small button is poor ergonomics. The left-right buttons or the dial should be assignable to this (though I use the dial for other stuff). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. G Posted March 20 Share #44 Posted March 20 57 minutes ago, DaveV said: The specs as they announced today look solid. It is an f/4 lens (dof equivalent of a f/3.2 on FF). While I do use my Q3 for creative dof shots, my bigger concern. Is light gathering and ultimately image noise from high ISO as a reult. I do a fair amount of shooting in low/night light and when I couple the 1.7 Suumilux lens with the farastic low light performance of the Q3, it is a really great camera for those uses, so while Im intrigued by the GFX100RF, Im not convinced it would give me the results I'm looking. Im going to sit tight and wait to see some results from this camera in various conditions before I give it a serious look. As far as low light goes, a stabilized 60MP image would probably be better than an unstabilized 100MP in most people's hands. I always thought that dynamic range was a benefit for MF sensors, so maybe you could underexpose to keep shutter speeds up and then pull up the image in post. I've always stayed away from M cameras - not because of the MF experience, but because of the lack of stabilization as I also do a lot of low light shooting. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted March 20 Share #45 Posted March 20 I thought about getting one until I realised it did not have IBIS. As an old fart with trembly hands, IBIS is becoming a necessity for me. It is why recently I have used my Q3 more than my M10-R. I would rather pay the extra and get a Hasselblad X2D with IBIS and interchangeable lenses. Rather than get an M12 in 2026, I might go for a Hasselblad mirrorless, whatever they are making by then. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted March 20 Share #46 Posted March 20 Does the Fuji GFX100RF excite me with the 28mm equivalent, f/4 equivalent lens and no stabilization? Nah, not so much as a twitch. There's nothing out there that would even tempt me to replace my Q3 43. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hexx Posted March 20 Share #47 Posted March 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) 59 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said: I thought about getting one until I realised it did not have IBIS. As an old fart with trembly hands, IBIS is becoming a necessity for me. It is why recently I have used my Q3 more than my M10-R. I would rather pay the extra and get a Hasselblad X2D with IBIS and interchangeable lenses. Rather than get an M12 in 2026, I might go for a Hasselblad mirrorless, whatever they are making by then. Wilson Would be interesting to see if the introduction of this new camera will somehow lead to reduction in price of X2D, currently it costs over £7,300 here in the UK. I considered it before finally opting for the Q3. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted March 20 Share #48 Posted March 20 In a way, it is a re-run of the philosophy of the Texas Leica GW690, offer the same, just larger. Which I almost bought as a used camera but the 5.6 lens was a bit too low for my taste. I'm not sure, whether the format switch is implemented like the LX100, where the lens size is reduced by accepting a smaller image circle, which is then compensated with different image formats or whether it is simply cropping the image in a way which could also be done in post-processing. In any case, we have to congratulate Fuji for regularly offering unconventional solutions, the market would be poorer without Fuji,. Stefan 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted March 20 Share #49 Posted March 20 3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: I agree that crop mode on the Q is not well-implemented. I use crop modes a lot to control AF and metering, so cycling through the frames only in one direction (larger to smaller) is a pain, and repeated pressing of a small button is poor ergonomics. The left-right buttons or the dial should be assignable to this (though I use the dial for other stuff). If developers want, it is easy to fix this by adding the “Zoom in”/“Zoom out” functions so that they can be assigned to buttons. And finally make a full-screen zoom in addition to the option with a frame. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted March 20 Share #50 Posted March 20 It seems Fujifilm think more MP and larger sensor can compensate slower lens. I can buy it if it has at least f2. I think Leica SL vs S already answered the question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted March 20 Share #51 Posted March 20 I think it is largely about focal length and application. If you are a 28mm shooter and mostly interested in landscape work, the Fuji has a noticeable advantage over the Q3. But if you prefer a more normal focal length, the Q3 43 is still seemingly a better choice. I believe it said the Fuji was around 30mp when cropped down to 40-50mm, so then compared to the Q3 43 it is not appealing: slower, using a similar or smaller size sensor area, having half the resolution, not stabilization etc. I think the Qs are still more versatile cameras for this sector given their flexibility and the availability of two focal lengths. I would say the niche here is people looking for wide angle high resolution daylight images in a compact package. As a more general purpose travel/street camera, I think the Q is probably more practical. It is hard to argue with the price, resolution and size, however, so I am sure it will find users on those strengths alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon D Posted March 20 Share #52 Posted March 20 This release suggests to me that the GFX range is losing market share. They look to be trying to ride on the back of the success X100 series. I don’t understand this model at all. There are better options for landscape, street, studio, product, portrait, reportage, documentary etc within the Fuji range. If it’s meant as a more casual, travel type offer, then the X100Vi is a much better proposition. F4 and no IBIS? If the GFX RF is the answer, what was the question? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzajl Posted March 20 Share #53 Posted March 20 Now we have the details, I think it looks great. It offers more power than a Q and does it in a form that will far more easily fit into coat pocket. I can see how at the headline level f4 is not turning people on but when go medium format, you move to the slow lane. In terms of DoF, there is stop of difference between the Q and the RF and that seems an acceptable trade off for the more attractive perspective of the 35mm lens compared to the 28. I agree IBIS would have been nice but it's not the huge omission some are saying it is. With a small, light camera and a leaf shutter it's far less prone to shake and contrary to what has been said, There isn't a better camera in low light than a GFX100. Straight comparisons at set ISOs do not tell the real story. Where you get the gains in the depth of detail recoverable in the shadows, the usable dynamic range is simply mind bending. It still amazes me every day. So with a combination of an ISO around 6400 and that shadow pull, you can almost shoot in the dark. It might not be the latest sensor tech but it is also essentially the same Sony that's in the M11/Q3/SL3, just a bigger slice of the pie. What is most sad about this camera is that even knowing how good it will be, knowing how much I've enjoyed those more off piste Fuji creations, I really don't want one. It's just another GFX, a tool to deliver stunningly crisp and perfect renditions of the world around us. All the specs and charts aside, the Q is designed to be desired. It would sit on the shelf and just seeing it there would make you want to have in your hand, to go and see the world, to chase the light. That said, I think that 47 and 60mp are also too much for 35mm sized sensor. They lead to great quality but the price is a clinical nature to the image that isn't for me. So the one I would personally covet from all the options, is the original Q. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Brown Posted March 20 Share #54 Posted March 20 (edited) A digital medium format camera with 100+ megapixels without IBIS and a fixed lens sporting f/4 is doomed from the first second of its existence. It is too narrow for landscape shooters, too slow for street shooters, too shakey for rich old folks who buy this at 70 and too bulky for hipsters who want everything pocketable. Hurts but it is the truth. Edited March 20 by Al Brown 2 3 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzajl Posted March 20 Share #55 Posted March 20 15 minutes ago, Jon D said: If the GFX RF is the answer, what was the question? How small can we make a MF camera? Probably. I admire them for doing it, I don't think they are going to have X100 like supply problems though. And I forgot to include above that I don't care for calling it 'RF'. Fuji have made some epic medium format rangefinders, this feels like a cheap attempt at association. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Brown Posted March 20 Share #56 Posted March 20 (edited) 3 hours ago, hexx said: Would be interesting to see if the introduction of this new camera will somehow lead to reduction in price of X2D, currently it costs over £7,300 here in the UK. I considered it before finally opting for the Q3. Absolutely no effect whatsoever. The only price reduction X2D will get is when the X2D II comes out (very soon), tons of people will be selling the X2D because they will think the second iteration will make their photography better. Edited March 20 by Al Brown 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmschuh Posted March 20 Share #57 Posted March 20 I have been looking forward to the launch of this camera for a long time. But what Fujifilm has now presented is a big disappointment for me. I don't find Fujifilm's camera particularly beautiful, in fact it looks pretty ugly to me. Visually, the form factor of this camera is not only unusual, but also looks unsatisfactory. The speed of f4 makes it quite difficult for available light photography, especially as the camera has neither IBIS nor OIS. At the same time, the DoF potential at f4 is not particularly high. This corresponds to f3.2 for 35mm, which is something you can get pretty much anywhere for less money. Then there are the typical Fuji menus, this creepy Q menu, etc. And do I need 100MP now that I already have 60MP? Only the possibility to simulate a longer focal length by cropping justifies the 60MP I already have. Without cropping, I wouldn't need 60MP, let alone 100MP. To be honest, this is not a camera that makes me think for a second about whether I should give it a try or whether it could replace or supersede one of the two Q3 cameras I have. I switched from Fujifilm to Leica a few years ago and so far I haven't regretted it. 4 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smogg Posted March 20 Share #58 Posted March 20 44 minutes ago, Al Brown said: A digital medium format camera with 100+ megapixels without IBIS and a fixed lens sporting f/4 is doomed from the first second of its existence. It is too narrow for landscape shooters, too slow for street shooters, too shakey for rich old folks who buy this at 70 and too bulky for hipsters who want everything pocketable. Hurts but it is the truth. f4 not enough for street photography? 99 percent of magnum photographers' photos are taken with a closed aperture. 99 percent of Instagram photos are taken with an open aperture. The choice is yours😀 4 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
o2mpx Posted March 20 Share #59 Posted March 20 Despite initial reactions to lack of ibis, preordered one. Perhaps a gamble that given mid aperture landscapes are all I shoot, the leaf shutter and lack of ibis won’t be a showstopper, and the 100mp will help with crop ability by traveling with just 1 camera. This will mean selling the Q2 Ghost to fund the purchase; and cancel out my looking for a used Q3 28. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzajl Posted March 20 Share #60 Posted March 20 10 minutes ago, o2mpx said: Despite initial reactions to lack of ibis, preordered one. Perhaps a gamble that given mid aperture landscapes are all I shoot, the leaf shutter and lack of ibis won’t be a showstopper, and the 100mp will help with crop ability by traveling with just 1 camera. This will mean selling the Q2 Ghost to fund the purchase; and cancel out my looking for a used Q3 28. First person to tackle that really tough question huh. So which way have you gone? Black or silver? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.