First impressions - Fujifilm GFX 100s II Medium Format Camera

[Manfred M]

Having used the GFX 100 s II for about 2-1/2 weeks I am starting to understand the advantages and limitations to using a medium format camera. After shooting Nikon for 14 years, the learning curve is quite steep in moving to Fujifilm and mirrorless.

From an image quality standpoint, the 102MP, 44 x 33mm (11648 x 8736 pixels) sensor that is almost 1.7 times larger than a full-frame sensor captures more data. The crop factor is 0.79 FF equivalent. It uses a standard Bayer array rather than the x-Trans filter used on the APS-C Fujifilm cameras. The camera creates a true 16-bit digital image, and this results in smoother transitions in areas like skin tones and in the sky. Digital noise is less noticeable. These are definitely apparent in large format prints. This is also apparent on a high quality, wide-gamut computer screen. These differences are very subtle and are only noticeable when viewed close-up. Step back a few feet / meters, and you won’t notice this. There is a slightly different visual dynamic to the images as well, much like we see when we compare crop sensor images with full-frame ones. The IBIS is rated at 8-stops and I have been getting sharp handheld images at relative low shutter speeds.

Another difference is that the sensor has a 4:3 aspect ratio (something also seen with mFT sensors) rather than the 2:3 aspect ratio in full-frame and APS-C cameras.

A larger sensor requires a larger mechanical shutter, so the maximum shutter speed is 1/4000th second versus the 1/8000th second on my full-frame camera. Flash synch speed is 1/125th second rather than the 1/250th second on my full frame camera.

The files are huge. The sensor has a native resolution of 102MP and the lossless compressed raw files are 140MP and larger. Photoshop has no issues in processing these files, but the load and save times are long.
Overall size and weight of the camera is comparable to my full-frame DSLR and in fact, the setup comes in a bit lighter than the D810 with the f/2.8 24-70mm and f/2.8 70-200mm.
The Fujinon lenses are large and generally a stop slower than what I was using with the D810. The pro zoom lenses on full frame tend to have a 3x zoom factor and that is down to around 2x for medium format. The lenses are physically large, due to the larger image circle that they must cover. The minimum focus distance tends to be worse than the full frame lenses. With 9 blades, they produce nice bokeh. The zoom is silky smooth.

The positive is that these are very sharp, well sealed pro glass that operate very smoothly. The autofocus motor is very fast. They have a constant aperture throughout the range. They have an aperture ring, something that I missed on the model PASM style controls. They are also quite expensive, so I will likely stick to the f/4 45 – 100mm (FF equivalent of 36 – 78mm) and the f/5.6 100 – 200mm (FF equivalent of 79 – 168mm). I also lose about 2/3 stop in DoF, i.e. at f/4, I get the DoF FF equivalent of f/3.2 and the f/5.6 performs at a FF equivalent of f/4.4.

The 5.76EVF is high resolution and bright and I love all the data I can see in the viewfinder and functionality it has versus the optical viewfinder of the D810.

Like other mirrorless cameras, the battery life is not nearly as good as a DSLR, so the obvious solution is to buy several batteries. I’m running with three right now and as I mainly plan to use the camera in a studio environment, that should work out well. One pleasant surprise is that when in tethered mode, the USB cable charges the battery. This was always an issue with the D810 as tethering drained the battery quite quickly.
Unfortunately, it uses SD cards, instead of some of the newer technology, but with the way I shoot, this is not going to be an issue.

I had considered Hasselblad X2D 100C as well, but when I looked at the two cameras, the GFX100sII outperformed the Hasselblad in almost every aspect other than looks and ergonomics. The Hasselblad uses leaf shutters in the lenses, that make them much more expensive and with no real advantage for the type of work that I do. The camera and two lenses (which were on sale when I bought them) was about the same as the X2D body alone. The GFX 100s II is a better performer in almost every way.
I’ve taken about 1000 shots so far, mostly in the studio. It will take me a few months more of daily shooting to become completely comfortable with the camera. I plan to test the pixel shift (400MP output) and focus stacking functionality next.

And yes, I am keeping the D810 and will continue to use it as my travel and walk about camera. With all of the specialized lenses I have for it, I expect a few more years of life. When it dies, I will replace it with a Nikon mirrorless and continue to use the Nikon lenses via an adaptor.

The camera does pretty well what I expected and in fact it has exceeded my expectations.

[billtils]

Glad to hear that it seems to be working out for you Manfred. Nice too, that you are keeping the D810 - my much loved one went when I switched to the Z6 and I haven't regretted it but it's horses for courses - the link between what you have done and what I did is that the gear is suitable for what we do. My days of long walks with a backpack filled with a heavy body and lenses are in the past...

[Chataignier]

A good friend has also bought the Fuji GFX100 and uses it alongside his Fuji X-T5. His observations are similar to yours, the GFX for studio and sometimes for landscapes and the X-T5 for everyday. I've seen some 30/40cm prints from his GFX and they are certainly very detailed.

He too is one time Nikon and has many fine Nikon lenses - don't Fringer have adaptors for Nikon lenses on GFX and another for FX ?

[lunaticitizen]

Congrats! I only print A4-sized pics so I've never considered medium format.
They're so heavy too; I'd hate to lug them around.

[Manfred M]

He too is one time Nikon and has many fine Nikon lenses - don't Fringer have adaptors for Nikon lenses on GFX and another for FX ?

I see no real advantage in doing this as there are optical tradeoffs involved. If I were getting rid of Nikon body, maybe. On the other hand I am planning to getting a Hasselbad V to GFX converter so that I can use the 80mm and 150mm Zeiss glass that I own on the GFX.

[Manfred M]

A good friend has also bought the Fuji GFX100 and uses it alongside his Fuji X-T5. His observations are similar to yours, the GFX for studio and sometimes for landscapes and the X-T5 for everyday. I've seen some 30/40cm prints from his GFX and they are certainly very detailed.

He too is one time Nikon and has many fine Nikon lenses - don't Fringer have adaptors for Nikon lenses on GFX and another for FX ?

The Nikkor G 28-300mm lens has been my go-to lens for travel and street photography. I plan to continue to do that.

[Manfred M]

Congrats! I only print A4-sized pics so I've never considered medium format.
They're so heavy too; I'd hate to lug them around.

Actually, the GFX with the 45-100mm weighs less than the D810 with the 24-70mm, so weight is not really a consideration. That being said, I am largely planning to use it as just a studio camera, so its weight is not an issue when I spend most of my time shooting still life using a tripod...

[lunaticitizen]

I heard some people use one of those Foba stands instead of a tripod inside a studio.

Do you have any experience with them? Not that I plan to get one though. 😆

[Manfred M]

I have used them and it is definitely a piece of equipment that lends itself to the type of photography that I do.

Foba is a Swiss company that makes these units. I have experience with a Cambo stand, which is made by a Dutch company. These are all heavy duty pieces of equipment that are designed for large format cameras, although the smaller units are fine for medium format work. The Manfrotto Mini Salon 190 is at the higher end of what I am looking at. If I see a used one in good working order come on the market, I will probably look at buying one.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...90_Camera.html

[Manfred M]

After shooting the GFX100sII for a number of weeks (close to 2000 images), i am starting to understand the camera and what it can and cannot do.

1. Image quality is outstanding. The larger sensor and full 16-bit colour give beautiful resolution and beautiful tonal transitions. These seem to be better than anything I have seen come out of a modern full-frame sensor. I've studied images made by the Hasselblad X2D 100C (which uses the same sensor technology, with a different micro lens structure / stack) and the image quality is comparable.

I have not made any large prints yet, but plan to do so over the next few days. The larger sensor means that the diffraction drop of occurs

2. While the overall weight is slightly less than my Nikon system, the larger sensor requires a larger image circle, so the lenses are physically large (the diameter of the lenses). Overall balance is good and I enjoy shooting lenses that have been equipped with an aperture ring. As I primarily plan to use the equipment in a studio setting, the weight is not an issue. Having carried the gear around for 10 day, on a recent trip, I really did not find it to be a problem.

3. Low light / high ISO performance is excellent. Noise is simply not as apparent as individual pixels are spread over an area that is around 70% larger than full frame. I had been told about this, but was a bit skeptical.

4. Image stabilization - the camera body has IBIS and the two lenses I have are also stabilized. Fujifilm (as well as other manufacturers) use both methods of stabilization. IBIS works best for shorter focal lengths while in lens stabilization works better for longer focal length, so I get the best of both words. The system is supposed to be able to tell that the camera is on a tripod and from what I have seen so far, that functionality seems to work. Fujifilm claims 8-stop stabilization and I do thing that is a bit optimistic. That being said, I have hand-held shots at over 150mm down to 1/15th second and have acceptable results, which is impressive.

5. Lenses - Fujifilm lenses have always had a good reputation and coupled with the 102MP sensor, the resolution is very good. Part of this is due to the slower glass (the 45-100mm is a constant f/4 lens and the 100 - 200mm lens is a constant f/5.6 ). The 45 - 100mm shows a bit of softness, especially along the edges at the longer focal lengths, but still very good. These lenses are expensive enough as it is and adding an extra stop would result in far heavier and more expensive lenses.

I plan to get some fixed focal length lenses down the road...

Another bonus of medium format that the diffraction limit doesn't really cause issues until I get below f/16. With full-frame, f/11 to f/13 was generally the limit as to how far I would push things. On the flip side, I also lose about 2/3 -stop in depth of field, for equivalent focal length /framing.

6. The biggest disappointment is the battery life. That was expected and I have three batteries. That should be plenty for the type of shooting that I usually do. It very much reminds me of the issues on battery life on the mFT Lumix GX 7. Fortunately, when I shoot in the studio, the camera takes power from the computer it is tethered to. With the D810, tethering is hard on battery life and Fujiflim's solution is better for me than Nikon's.

Fuji has their own tethering app, so I will drop using Capture One, when my subscription expires. Lightroom's tethering is not particularly elegant and I can't get it to work the way I would like it to.

The camera does not support an vertical grip and much of my still life work is shot with the camera in vertical orientation. Tethering makes for an easy work around as I usually trigger the camera from my laptop.

7. Autofocus is amazingly fast given how much glass the lens motor has to move. I still generally use the BBF (Back-Button-Focus) technique. For still life, moving the focus point is much easier than it was on the DSLR.

8. Lots of stuff I still need to try; focus stacking, pixel shift, etc. I look forward to getting back into the studio to do some portraiture this fall and winter.

9. The buttons on the back of the camera are quite small and have a low profile when compared to the D810. This is a bit of a problem when I am not shooting in the studio, as I have to change my shooting approach a bit.


Overall, the new gear has met or exceeded my expectations.

If anyone is looking at replacing their DSLR and especially if they need to migrate to a new lens system, I highly recommend looking at the medium format Fujifilm 102 MP cameras.

[DanK]

A very thorough explanation. Glad to hear that this has met your expectations. Given that you sometimes print very large, this format will be more of a benefit to you than to many.

Some of what you describe is specific to this camera or to the format, but some is characteristic of many good contemporary mirrorless cameras, e.g., 4, 7, & 8. You are getting a double benefit: the technological progress since your last camera, and benefits of the large format.

One point you made is something I had never heard before. I had always read that the negative correlation between sensor size and noise arises from the larger photosites on larger sensors. I had never encountered the notion that it is also a function of the distance between the photosites. However, that does make sense, as long as the image isn't blown up too large.

[Manfred M]

One point you made is something I had never heard before. I had always read that the negative correlation between sensor size and noise arises from the larger photosites on larger sensors. I had never encountered the notion that it is also a function of the distance between the photosites. However, that does make sense, as long as the image isn't blown up too large.

No mystery here Dan. This has nothing to do with anything other than a larger format (higher pixel count) needs less magnification, so the noise does not show up as much. The physically larger sensor comes into play with higher image resolution also has the effect of sharper image details, which can make the image noise seem less apparent.

[DanK]

No mystery here Dan. This has nothing to do with anything other than a larger format (higher pixel count) needs less magnification, so the noise does not show up as much. The physically larger sensor comes into play with higher image resolution also has the effect of sharper image details, which can make the image noise seem less apparent.

Now that I've come back to this a second time, the first of the two reasons you give puzzles me. It can't be just pixel count. Let's compare the Canon R7 APS-C, 32.5 MPX, with a pixel pitch of 3.19 microns, and the R6 II FF, 24 MPX and 5.96 microns. Which would show less noise?

It does make sense to me if the variable is pixel count holding constant other aspects of sensor design. Most noise is pixel based, so packing more pixels into the same space, making each smaller in the print, would help, again holding all else constant.

I suspect that the issue is more the joint effect of sensor size and pixel count. With its considerably larger sensor, the Fuji can pack in 102 MPX while keeping the pixel pitch quite reasonable, 3.76 microns, hence avoiding the small-photosite problem that exacerbates noise in high-MPX cameras with smaller sensors.

[Manfred M]

I suspect that the issue is more the joint effect of sensor size and pixel count. With its considerably larger sensor, the Fuji can pack in 102 MPX while keeping the pixel pitch quite reasonable, 3.76 microns, hence avoiding the small-photosite problem that exacerbates noise in high-MPX cameras with smaller sensors.

I tend to agree, but don't completely understand the underlying physics that give us that result.

I suspect that higher end cameras, regardless of sensor size, likely use sensors with superior performance characteristics. I suspect this might be one of the factors at play, even when the photo sites are the same size.

[Manfred M]

After your post, Dan, I started doing a bit more research on this subject and found the following article on the B&H website.

While the author is clear that a lot of his thoughts are subjective, the article matches my own opinions on what is likely happening.

What the author seems to have missed is that modern medium format lenses are designed to create higher resolutions than smaller sensor sizes. I remember reading an article where the resolution of a few current medium format cameras were compared to a high pixel count FF camera (a Sony model) and the measured resolution of the medium format cameras (line pairs per mm) were significantly higher than the FF ones. I will post the link if I can find it again.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...115/kbid/10779

[DanK]

Manfred,

thanks

Dan

[Manfred M]

I found the article. It is from Digital Camera World, July 19, 2024.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/r...00s-ii-verdict

The chart that is of interest compares the resolution of two Fujifilm and one Hasselblad medium format cameras (all using a similar Sony 102 MP sensor) and the Sony a7R V, with its 60MP sensor.


Resolution (line widths/picture height):




The resolution of the medium format cameras is far higher than even the largest pixel count full-frame sensor.

[lunaticitizen]

With the same sensor technology, bigger sensor always will result in less apparent noise because they collect more light.

Regarding the scenario with sensors possessing identical size but with different pixel count: if you see the images at 100% magnification then of course the sensor with fewer pixels will show more noise. However, this kind of method is not useful if you want to investigate noise because it's not how we usually view images.

If you magnify (normalize) them to the same viewing medium (e.g., 24" HD monitor, A4-sized prints, etc.) then you'll see that the apparent noise is similar.

See this DXOMark comparison for Sony A7R V (61MP) vs Sony A7 III (24MP)

At 100% magnification you can see that the A7 III looks much better than the A7R V.


However, when you compare at the same magnification (in this case, 8MP) you can see that they're similar.


Finally, the Fujifilm GFX100S II shows less apparent noise at than any of its FF cousins (Sony A7R IV, V) at the same magnification because, at the risk of repeating myself, its sensor is considerably bigger.

[Manfred M]

Agreed Leo - that is generally referred to as "shot noise" and you are correct that this related to a physically larger sensor as opposed to the size of the individual pixels.

I was looking to maximize image quality for my fine art photography. Although I will continue to use my ancient D810 for a lot of work that does not occur in a studio, I had to make a decision on which way to go, given that Nikon had developed a new lens mount. Do I stick with the Nikon system (the Z8 looks really good) or do I move on to a different manufacturer that offers me more than Nikon does right now?

Given my direction in studio work, especially in the fine art side of things and the large format prints that I make, a larger sensor made sense. I had a very hard look at all of the medium format cameras; that really means Fujifilm, Hasselblad and Phase One. Pentax and Leica seem to be leaving the market as does the Hasselblad H6D. Phase One cameras cost as much as a luxury car and that is without the lenses... That left me looking at the Fujifilm and Hasselblad lineup.

The Hasselblad lineup with the 907X with the CFV 100C is interesting as the back is compatible with my Hasselblad 500C/M. Unfortunately, the back is not sold separately and the 907X is not stabilized and is primarily just a studio camera. The X2D 100c is more interesting and was definitely under consideration. It is not as "talented" as the GFX100s II I bought and a touch more expensive. The real major expense are the lenses, that are all equipped with leaf shutters. While that has an upside, it is less of a factor for the way I plan to use the camera. The real show stopper is that the cameras have to be shipped to Sweden for repairs.

The other issue was financial. The cost of the GFX 100s II and two lenses was just a little bit more than just the X2D 100C body.

All that being said, the images a wonderful, from a technical standpoint. Very low noise. I generally try to shoot at or close to the base ISO, although the images are quite good, even at high ISO. The images are very sharp and I have lots of data to work with. Fujifilm has confirmed that they design the G series lenses for the 100MP resolution.

[lunaticitizen]

It's nice to have walls in your house large enough to accommodate huge prints.

Here space is limited so having A3 prints on your walls already make you feel too cramped!

Moreover, there's no reasonably priced frame bigger than A3 so you have to use the service of a custom framer and the cost is absolutely exorbitant. I just happened to read an article on the NYT about custom framing and it's good to know that I'm not the only person who think like that. I don't know how to justify the cost to my wife