« 25 Years of Digital | Main | Blog Note: '25 Years of Digital' Lecture »

Friday, 20 January 2017

Comments

That's all well and good Mike, but if it doesn't have [INSERT ARBITRARY FEATURE OF CHOICE HERE] then Fuji are morons and I'm never buying one. Even if I could, which I can't. Sniff, sniff....

I would highly advise against watching any of the Fuji produced photographer/GFX promo videos on Youtube unless you want to sell a kidney. It looks like an absolutely amazing camera. I have been trying to convince myself that I can survive on one meal of ramen noodle a day for a year or two... My dogs would of course still get their two meals + treats.

I remember reading an interview with a Fuji executive who said the lenses are designed to work with a planned future iteration of the camera with a larger 100 megapixel sensor. So it's probably a sound investment if you can afford it.

If there is an adapter that will let me use my canon tse lenses I'm in...

Nice read on the GFX:

https://www.prophotonut.com/2017/01/19/gfx-high-res-samples/

Somehow that pre-order of the X100F and 50mm F2 seems so puny...... I almost was 1/4 of the way there.

With its least expensive lens, the GFX costs a little more than my last year of college (admittedly a long time ago). But Penn offered me a nice financial aid package to soften the blow. Anything like that from Fuji?

£5,700! Doubt that will be a big seller here in Brexitopia.

Stop tempting me. I'm working out a plan where I don't read any photo sites or news. That way I don't have to tell my kids why I stopped paying for college. Or maybe I can convince myself that the 100MP iteration Stanleyk alludes to will really be the one to buy.

This really is the first new camera I've been excited about in a while. As dumb as it sounds getting a 4x3 aspect ratio sensor is one of the high points for me. I shoot at least 50% of my shots in portrait orientation and 3x2 really doesn't comfortably work for me.

This is (finally) a justification for selling the sailboat. Also, the P-1800 Volvo. Finally.

So, have you found someone to loan me one for two years yet? ;-)

What!? No leaf shutter lenses!?

What.. no Dan Cortese?

What? No image stabilization? Sheesh. lol

Suddenly 'full frame' doesn't sound appropriate any more...

Can we just call it 35mm again?

I look at the Fuji and I look at the Hasselblad X1D mentioned here recently and I can't help but think that if I were a young pro photographer I'd far rather go into debt for the Hasselblad.

Am I missing something? Is there really anything better about the Fuji? If so I just can't see it.

It may well be the answer to some photographers' most fervent desires, but there's nothing here that entices me. Now if it had a 56mm x 85mm sensor of 150mp+, and was about the size of the Fuji 690s it would be a different matter. And likely a different cost.

Right now it's a large and slightly clunky item that won't help make my photos better. The Leica M10, on the other hand...

51Mp, and no IS.
Expensive way to waste all that resolution (IMO, FWIW).

Well crap, you mean it's better than my ST605n. Oh yeah, $6.5K plus std angle lens for $1.5K. Like they say (who is 'they' anyway), all it takes is money.

Pffft. Another one of those 4/3rds cameras..... ;-)

I like the fact that they have a good lineup of lenses for the body. It was a major PITA when the Pentax 645 D came out.

As far as I can see it has just about every option that you would want. Sigh :-(

Mike,
You left out the price for all this goodness. I guess If you have to ask....

This seems to be a beautiful camera, but what is so absolutely unique about it that others, e.g. my Pentax 645z, don't already have? Did I miss something?

Luckily the camera along with two or three lenses is too expensive for me. I say luckily because there really isn't anything wrong with my current full frame system. The Fuji seems like a nice product though.

Mike, isn't it an offence to peddle crack to photographers?

Hmm. Let's see now

Fuji GFS-50S (with lens) or Leica M10 (with lens) or put food on the table for a freakin' year.

Decisions, decisions....

:-)

Too many awesome cameras and too little income makes me very sad indeed. But for those who can afford these, I can only quote from "The Producers": Flaunt it, baby! Flaunt it!

I was wondering why a friend offered me a good deal on a digital back for my 503 the other day ....

For those who grouse about the price, it's barely more expensive than the Canon 1DX and the same price as the Nikon D5 or Leica M10. It's the cheapest of all digital medium format bodies, a good $500 less than the Pentax 645Z.

Fuji makes the lenses for the Hasselblad H system, and they have large format lens expertise, I have no doubt their GF lenses will be excellent as well.

All of you guys keep ignoring the Phase one system. Mike you can even buy a B&W back, old backs work and the range of lenses is getting larger. You want a 50Mp back, 100Mp, 40 or 45 B&W?

There they are - and the software runs on a Mac. Mirrorles? yup, but the price for these devices make my eyes water.

So here's an interesting thought exercise:

The GFX50S has a sensor about 1.7x larger than a full-frame camera's, giving it a 0.76-stop advantage in noise or dynamic range for say making prints of equal sizes. But the Nikon D810 has a base ISO of 64 so it gets a 0.64-stop advantage over the base ISO of 100 of the Fuji.

Added together, that gives the Fuji barely over a tenth of a stop advantage when shot at base ISO. For those photos that use base ISO, like any kind of tripod-based shooting (is. landscapes) or when there's studio lighting available, for the same viewing sizes, the Fuji will barely be better. And that's assuming your technique isn't the limiting factor which is not a given with such high resolution cameras and optics.

I'm sure for high ISO work, the Fuji will pull far ahead of the D810 but it seems that for a certain class of quality-conscious shooting, the Fuji is not clearly better.

The irony reads really well until we reach the affiliate link at the end! ;)

Yes its was clearly the best camera of 2016. Not only does it have everything. But since it wasn't out in 2016, all the magic still works. Whatever your current system does that bugs you, it will not do. It perfect, atleast until March 2017, then we will be told all the things wong with it.

it has your approval, too. so it must be good. i am not in buying phase though.
once upon a time your approval was given to sony, to nikon, to olympus, to panasonic, to pentax. so i think they are generally all good (and canon too). i like your writing but i am not so enthusiastic about the product. i would not have been even if i had the money.

[No, I haven't used one, or seen one. I doubt I will, either, until it's old news. Unless I make it to NYC and the B&H Superstore this Spring, which is a possibility. --Mike]

Sounds nice but I'll wait for the Fuschia colored Komodo Dragon Lizard skin with engraved Unicorn on top before I buy mine.
In modeling a lot after Leica surely this will come out before long.

What makes it so remarkable I think, is the successful campaign ! Good amount of previews, image samples, promo materials, ... On day one, you could drink 10 coffees worth of samples. Great !

Very enthusiastic about it but still somewhat more enthused by the Hasselblad X1D : much smaller, leaf shutters and same sensor upgrade path, thanks Sony.
Hasselblad could probably even align its price (perhaps with new pragmatic DJI direction)...
Full priority on promoting it !

Having said all that, I can't afford either :-D

addendum :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/transcontinenta/sets/72157676604133506

Mike,
I hadn't realized that I'd become so much of a bottom feeder until the comment above comparing the price to a D5. Sure enough, I went to Adorama, picked DSLRs, and sort by price, high to low, and there we go: D5 and 1DX, right at that price. Fuji is a contender for the cream of the crop: the smallest, yet most profitable segment of the market.

I was really shocked to see how much the 5D IV's and D500's were going for, until I saw that those were kits. Body only, things drop to the 4000 and 3500 range really quickly. Even so, that's the kind of money you need a reason to spend, not money you can kind of overlook, or rationalize. But then again, the last camera I bought was $105 (film!), and the one before it was $75. My next might cost $200.

I'd certainly consider renting the GFX for a few days. Every so often, I want to capture a scene with a big sensor.

Not everything. Though it will have leaf shutter capability through an adapter to Hasselblad H - it has contrast detect autofocus only - no phase.

"GFX-50S Has Everything"

That assumes that sensor size outweighs size and weight. That will be true for some, not for others.

Among the "Everything"s it will never have are IS and long lenses along with the things they bring, broad hand hold-ability, long working distance, hand held macro/C-U.

Antithetical to my sort of photography.

I also wonder what the vast majority of us potential customers would do with all those MPs. The Ctein sample print that he and you sold from the first µ4/3 camera, the 12 MP E-P1, convinced me that I'm wildly unlikely to need anything like 51 MP, other than for impressive pixel peeping, and perhaps a bit of mine is bigger . . .

The High Res Mode of my E-M5 II already gives the Pentax 645Z a run for its money, and I imaging the higher res E-M1 II will better that.

Yes, HR is great for playing and for lens testing. It's also a pretty amazing noise reduction mode. So yes, I've spent time gazing at HR images at 100%. But I can't see what advantage all that resolution can give to even fair size prints, let alone the books and web images in which most people see my work.

If someone walked up and handed me one with a lens or two, I would not even open the box before rushing to sell it.

No, no, no, this is all wrong. Stop. The craze has gone too far.
People need to ask themselves whether they are good enough photographers to justify the extra resolution and the high price. My guess? 99% of the people who crave this camera aren't.
And then the 1% remaining need to ask themselves whether they need it. Most probably will answer 'no', what with medium format modular cameras that are far more versatile.
All the drooling over this camera has to do with the current mirrorless madness - it's all electronics, shutter and viewfinder included, so it has to be better because 'electronic' is the future, right? -, and with Fuji having garnered a legion of followers. Alas, the latter happened for all the wrong reasons. People who love Fuji do so for their love of retro and for the film simulation filters. It's so ironic that people who'd wear tees saying 'I Shoot Raw' converted to Fuji and now shoot JPEG with their X-Something expensive toys.
And some are so gullible they're ready and willing to make the same mistake as back in 2010, when Fuji released the original X100: they senselessly spent a lot of money on a flawed camera that was good for almost nothing and which they didn't need. They'll be at it again.
This is all a fad. Amateurs don't need this camera, professionals have better options. Oh, but it has this huge sensor...

It's small but not as small as it could be. I'd be curious to get my hands on it. The Hasselblad X1D seems a bit more convenient but I wonder what that's like in hand.

It is conventional to measure formats by their diagonal, so in fact the crop factor for the Fuji is only 1.3X bigger than 35mm. It is 1.7X larger in area, but that is misleading, as 35mm is considered 1.5X (diagonal) larger than APS, but actually is 2.6X larger in area. The sensor is really only marginally bigger and certainly not even close to 645 "medium format".

The comments to this entry are closed.