For a couple of years back in the heyday of digital, I nominated a camera as "The World's Most Desirable Camera"—which is absurd, of course. I meant the hottest of the hot newest products, the thing that everyone was talking about, the thing that had the highest or most widely shared degree of covetability.
Right now, that would be the Fuji GFX.
We should get used to calling it the "Fuji GFX-50S," because we'll have to as soon as another GFX camera model comes along. Remember "the OM-D"? When there was only one, we could call it that. Now we have to specify which OM-D. Pretty soon there will be another Fuji GFX (no, I don't have any information), and we'll have to call the first one the 50S.
So we might as well start calling it that now.
The fetching Fuji GFX, which we should start calling the 50S
I've decided I personally don't covet a Fuji 50S. I just do that sometimes—try not to covet what I can't get. It'll only drive ya crazy. I've gotten good at not wanting things.
A mote in the eye of Ye Paragon
Anyway it seems the Internet has reached its first small determination about the 50S—it works best with its own lenses. Lloyd Chambers of Diglloyd has figured out that Fuji put a piece of protective glass 9mm away from the sensor so that any dust on the protective glass would be defocused and become invisible to the sensor. That's fine with Fuji's own lenses, because it's taken into account in the design, but Lloyd has found that it causes increasing unsharpness toward the edges with adapted lenses shorter than 85mm.
This doesn't sound like a concern to me, because if I were coveting a Fuji 50S, I'd be coveting its own lenses to use with it. Let's face it: with all of Fuji's products, the glorious lens lines are one of the reasons to want the camera in the first place. Can you imagine buying one of the top-of-the-line Fuji X twins, the X-T2 or X-Pro2, and not using the XF lenses Fuji makes for them? I wouldn't be caught dead.
But your mileage may vary. There are lots of reasons people might want to use adapted lenses. Anyway caveat emptor.
If I were going to make a hobby of adapted lenses (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that—quite the opposite, it sounds like more fun than the proverbial barrel full of monkeys) I'd get a Sony A7II or one of the other A7 series cameras. The A7II is cheap (for a full-frame mirrorless with in-body image stabilization [IBIS], important because IBIS works with adapted lenses too), it's full-frame, and there are heaps of adapters made for it.
Back to fabulous Fuji-land...
If only, I muse to myself, if only there were someone out there who could write a review of the coveted GFX-50S for us. In the rolling mists of my imagination I picture someone who lives high in a tower in a White City...someone with Japanese heritage, even, who is daily surrounded by many cameras like heaps of gold...someone who is himself a fine if as-yet little-known photographer of said White City, who is astute about the ways of art and knows great Museums down to the warrens and vaults of their out-of-sight treasures...how I would love to post a review for you of the World's Most Desirable Camera from such a shutter-clicking knight-errant*...am I merely dreaming?...very well then I dream....
Nah, I'm coveting stuff again, and that will never do.
Mike
(Thanks to Michael Perini)
*A knight-errant (or knight errant, or white knight) is "a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning 'wandering, roving') indicates how the knight-errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels (pas d'armes) or in some other pursuit of courtly love." (Wikipedia)
Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A k-nicht who says ni
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jeremy: "I've succumbed to the temptation and got the GFX last month, together with the 32–64mm ƒ/4 and the 63mm ƒ/2.8.
"I've been using Fuji cameras for a few years now and I really like the bodies, lens line-up, and image quality. Especially, the black-and-white conversions are somehow effortlessly nice. The GFX, compared to X-T2 (which it replaced for me) is like a premium version of the same car—everything, except for speed and video, is ever so slightly better: the build quality, the ergonomics, the color rendering, the exposure range, the high-ISO noise, the ability to shoot in more aspect ratios in live view with little resolution penalty, the battery life, the tilting viewfinder. All of this translates to a much more satisfying shooting experience overall, for me. I have large hands, and the GFX is actually much nicer to hold than the X-T series (but I still prefer the X100 for casual picture taking). I dislike 'unnatural' highlight roll-off characteristic of many digital cameras: the GFX renders highlights beautifully. I like using the camera at lower-than-eye-level: both the viewfinder and the LCD screen are tiltable. I like to use square and panoramic aspect ratios: seeing them before capture and having enough resolution to crop heavily is lovely.
"There are nice touches everywhere, such as the rotating information display on the rear screen when you're shoot in vertical orientation (X-T[x] has that, but only in the viewfinder), nicer dials, addition of the 'C' position to switch between dials on lenses and command dials etc., etc.
"The lenses are fantastic too, especially the zoom, which is very sharp and focuses very quickly. The 63mm is quite small for a medium-format ƒ/2.8 lens, and surprisingly light.
"There is one issue though: I'm an (avid) amateur and I don't need the GFX. In the same way as I don't need a top-spec car model. But I like and enjoy it so much that even on days when I'm not using it 'purposefully' I still pick it up and walk around the house snapping happily.
"I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, but it is a great camera, and well worth considering if you're looking for top-notch image quality in a very versatile package."
Mark Kinsman: "So did Ken Tanaka respond to your thinly-veiled call out? 😊
Mike replies: Yes. He says he's working on a "a 'field notes'-style article rather than a full review of the GFX." Which sounds perfect. I can't wait! [UPDATE: See Ken's comment in the Comments section below.]
Bob Johnston: "If I had the money to buy a GFX would I buy one? You bet I would. Would it mean that I would produce better photographs? You bet it wouldn't."
Mike replies: I think I concur exactly.
Protective glass is the enemy of the lens-collector unless said collector sticks to highly telecentric lenses with copious exit pupil distances. The Sonys use 2mm of glass on their sensors, while Leica seems to have settled on 0.8 mm cover glass thickness on the current Ms and SL. So those should be the best choice for the collector of lenses from all eras and all makers. Expensive? Yeah, but what is that to the serious lens collector?
But there are limits. Jim Hughes gets lovely results from his Canon rangefinder 19mm on a Fuji X-Pro2. The Canon 19 is sort of a poor man's SuperAngulon, an extreme design that almost touches the imaging chip. But my copy, perhaps not in as pristine condition as Jim's, vignettes severely at full frame on my SL.
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 10:19 AM
The Sony A7ii also has a thick glass in front of the sensor, that's why Leica wide angle lenses look like crap on it and why some owners go to the trouble of replacing it.
Posted by: Vytas Narusevicius | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 10:24 AM
It's not like everyone wants a Fujifilm camera. In fact, according to CIPA, Fuji is dead last in mirrorless camera sales. (Which, incidentally, account for roughly half of DSLR sales volume.) Fortunately most consumers are wise enough to sway away from such expensive, yet flawed cameras.
And this lump of a camera is not really what I'd call 'desirable.' Atleast not in my book. Compare the 50S to the Hasselblad X1D: the latter is svelte, and its evocative design is simply gorgeous. A far cry from the rather bulky, all-black Fujifilm camera. And I have no reason to believe the Hasselblad is any worse than the Fujifilm. Sure, the Hasselblad is more expensive, but since we're in a 'what if I won the lottery' mode, that's not an issue.
Posted by: Manuel | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 10:43 AM
Mike, on the Fuji X- series and lenses other than Fuji. I ditched the excellent 14mm Fuji for the equally excellent 12mm Zeiss offering. At the wide end the two extra mm does make a difference. Both are very good. No problems with either lens, just wanted a bit wider without going to a zoom.
Posted by: Daniel | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 10:45 AM
Ya know Mike, they have this at LensRentals now...Just sayin"
Posted by: Jim Allen | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 10:50 AM
I always took it as a sign of ineptness on Sony's part that people rather use old manual focus lenses rather than their OEM offerings. Isn't it the case that the camera manufacturers make a higher margin with their lenses? At least traditionally. With Sony they introduce new models at such a rapid rate that perhaps they simply want to churn camera bodies....
Posted by: Frank Petronio | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 11:35 AM
Yes I too often wonder how the knight of the wind blown castle is not the ruler of an establishment of imaging goods, having more in his private vaults than the vaunted Samy, my liege, Earl of Angeles.
Posted by: Gabor of Mid Europe | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 11:37 AM
Mike, I appreciate your worldview. I am often amused by the way you ponder GAS.
Posted by: Bob Rosinsky | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 11:56 AM
Yaaaawn!!
Give us more shots of the farm!
My most desirable camera of this moment is on its way to me: a Yashica 66.
Hey, it doesn't need an extra piece of glass in front of the sensor.
And it has a bigger sensor too!
PLEASE, Mike, more photos!!!
Regards,
David
Posted by: David Millington | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 12:03 PM
Always thought its major 'problem' was its clunky, brick like appearance from a company renowned for its innovative design.
Posted by: Stan B. | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 12:21 PM
For a brief while I subscribed to the Facebook GFX page and saw "billions" of photos made with adapted lenses, all jpegs, all sized and modified for Facebook, all of which touted how fabulous they were. I found myself overloaded with "fake news." I knew they couldn't be as wonderful as touted. Thanks again to Lloyd and his analytical approach. It really does make sense that lenses designed without allowance for a specific cover glass might not work as well as hoped. The emperor has been revealed. He has no clothes. It makes no sense to spend US$6,500 on a body and then attach inferior lenses, what a surprise!
Posted by: Eric Brody | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 12:53 PM
A few dozen old lenses and a Sony A7 is fun! More fun than a barrel of monkeys I am sure, since a can of air and a microfiber cloth is usually adequate for lens cleanup.
I wonder though about the use of Fujifilm GFX to Hasselblad H adapter.
The camera, adapter, and lens are all made by Fujifilm as is the Hasselblad H itself. It seems like the best of all worlds solution to get a selection of leafshutter lenses and perhaps Fuji designed the GFX with the H lenses in mind.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 01:14 PM
I still enjoy shooting my Koni-Omega Rapid 200 (6x7) - the big negatives are a joy to look at. But I must confess, I sort of struggle to see the benefit of trying to squeeze legacy format lenses onto such a heavily cropped 44x33mm format.
Even 645 lenses will have a 1.3x crop factor, and 6x7 lenses will a 1.6x crop.
Don't get me wrong, I even enjoy using old 135 film SLR lenses on M4/3 sensors, so there's an even bigger crop. But at least those film lenses are relatively compact, lightweight, and very inexpensive.
With MF lenses, on the other hand, trying to get anything adapted in the wide or normal category on the Fuji 50S would cost a small fortune for dubious results.
But hey, if the cover glass doesn't affect anything longer than 85mm, those are probably the only lenses that actually make sense to adapt anyway, so maybe it's totally a non issue!
Posted by: Andrew | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 01:54 PM
Strange that Fuji announced a view camera adapter to be used with the GFX as the "medium format" back if it has that problem?
Posted by: Arne Cröll | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 03:39 PM
Mike: I’ve no idea who that guy in the White City is — but as you know I've been using the GFX-50S for about a month now. There are many reasons to "covet" this camera and its native lenses if you need extremely detailed larger-than-35mm frames. While no camera is perfect the GFX-50S might truly be THE game-changer among its peers in the emerging larger-than-full-frame / cropped medium-format sensor camera realm.
But that’s a larger essay. Let me get straight to the point here: adapted lenses versus Fuji's native GF lenses. Fuji’s GF lenses are excellent. I have the 63mm and the 120mm. (Jeremy’s 32–64mm is very scarce at this writing.) But if you need anything wider or longer, as I do, using adapted lenses is your only choice right now. If you’re a Hasselblad H system owner you’re in clover, as Fuji (cleverly) offers a fully-linked H-mount adapter for the GFX. Unfortunately us Phase One/Mamiya owners aren’t yet as well-accommodated. Fotodiox makes Mamiya 645 and Hassy V mount adapters for the GFX but they’re mechanical-only. So my Mamiya 645AF lenses will only work on the GFX wide-open.
My choice has been to get good Hasselblad and Mamiya manual-focus lenses to use with the Fotodiox adapters. (These lenses have manual diaphragms.) Patient searching has produced Mamiya 35mm F3.5 and 45mm F2.8 lenses and a Hasselblad 250mm F4. Each of these lenses is probably around 30 years old yet they’re all in like-new condition. Two even came with their original packaging and documentation. And I bought each for a fraction of their original prices!
So how do these lenses compare to the Fuji GX lenses? They’re each excellent, quite snappy across their frames with good contrast. (The Mamiyas each feature the then-“new” coatings, signified by the “N” designation. The Hassy is a Zeiss lens with T* coating.) But none are quite as sharp and crisp as the Fuji’s. I do not follow “digilloyd” but I don’t attribute this difference to insider engineering or glass sensor covers. Rather, I believe it's due to thirty years of progress with lens and camera designs. I have seen this same difference in old-lens experiments with my other cameras. Achieving a crisp image on inert film is a different, less cooperatively demanding, proposition than on a large digital sensor. Each of the older lenses renders a lovely highly detailed image that actually looks somewhat more film-like than the Fuji lenses. It’s a softness of fine tonality rather than strictly that of edge definition, if that makes sense.
At least that’s my take so far after approximately 750 frames.
Mike, I can’t really do a detailed review of the Fuji GFX (there are already plenty out there). But I did promise you some practical field notes on the camera which I am currently assembling into something legible and intelligible. Coming soon!
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 04:18 PM
tl;dr Fujifilm designed their system for their lenses. They don't care about enthusiasts who attempt to adapt older film lenses to their cameras. If you can afford $6500 for the body you should be able to afford the lenses. Wouldn't you buy this system for the "best quality" images?
I see Lloyd doesn't quite understand all the implications of this design: there are two.
The first (and the one he's most worried about) is slanting illumination of pixels in the corner and the impact of the thickness of the cover glass on that. This is the effect that leads to "purple corners" as rays pass through multiple pixels. You can clean it up in software (e.g. Sandy McGuffroy, of AccuRaw fame,has a program for this) but to minimize this effect you need a thin cover glass e.g. Leica which uses a very thin cover glass 0.25mm to enable it's old M mount film lenses work as well as they can on the CCD and CMOS sensors. It works well enough on "ordinary" focal length lenses but when you go very wide the ray angles of older symmetric lenses causes problems on non-monchrome sensors (note: this isn't an issue in with the monochrome Leicas -- in those you just get a bit more smearing in the corners).
You can accommodate this (as Leica do on their custom sensors) by offsetting the microlenses from each pixel: the further from the center of the sensor the more you move them towards to primary axis. If you were really clever you might even change their shape so they squint towards the axis (I don't know if anyone does this).
These slanting rays towards the edge of the image circle are not an issue as you design telecentric lenses for the platform so I rather doubt that Fujifilm do this as they will be designing telecentric lenses from the system (they have no incentive to design for backward compatibility).
The second is a (thick) flat plate adds spherical aberration into an optical system. This is not an issue for lens design for the platform that includes a thick flate plate as the designer takes account of that plate (and it's positive spherical aberration) when they design lenses. So all the lenses Fuji will make will work perfectly with this system.
You see this same design in the mirrorless micro FourThirds system which has a 5mm (and a bit) thick plate over the sensor. This was a design Olympus used in the original FourThirds DSLR cameras and retained when the introduced the micro FourThirds system so the older high quality lenses would be compatible when used on an lens adaptor.
The problem comes with older lenses designed (as Lloyd points out) for film cameras that expect no flat plate in front of the film.
Why anyone would be using Nikon FX lenses (or even other medium format lenses) on this camera is beyond me. If you can buy the body then you can buy the lenses. If you can't afford the latter then don't buy the former. In real life the people who will buy and use this camera will not be adapting lenses for it. That seems to be a curious amateur predilection (and perhaps the odd artists requiring a particular look).
Roger at LensRentals wrote a set of articles on this (Lloyd does reference it) in which measurements are made and conclusions drawn from those measurements.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/sensor-stack-thickness-part-iii-the-summary/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/01/a-thinner-sensor-stack/
Another comment: Lloyd says "Thick glass might make spectral cutoff easier than too-thin glass however, as per the Leica M8 infrared leakage problem.". The thickness of the cover glass has nothing to do with IR filtration. The IR cutoff filter is a dielectric mirror on the top of the cover glass. Leica did have a weak IR filter on on some of their early cameras (the M8?). They did this for reasons I don't fully understand but they corrected that in later models.
Finally he initially said that the spacing of the cover slip away from the sensor added more problems. As a reader pointed out to him (and he corrected the text) the position of the plate makes no difference (in this case).
Caveat lector when reading Lloyd :-)
On the upside it's nice to see the technical details and design decisions behind this camera fleshed out.
[A very thorough explanation Kevin, thanks very much. --Mike]
Posted by: Kevin Purcell | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 04:35 PM
I'm certain it's only a matter of time before several companies are modifying the GFX to use a thinner cover glass, as happened for the Sony A7-series camera bodies.
Posted by: JG | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 05:10 PM
One of the blogs I check in my rounds is George Barr's. I enjoy his abstract work quite a bit. He has recently started using a GFX and has several posts discussing the camera and perhaps more importantly pictures produced with the camera. Maybe something to tide you over until Ken mounts his charger and come to tilt at your windmill.
http://georgebarr.blogspot.com
Posted by: Cliff | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 06:30 PM
In my limited knowledge, I think Fuji is the only manufacturer to have used a cover glass with a significant air space behind it, adding 2 more air to glass transitions. They designed their lenses to account for that, thus had to know the problems it would cause for 3rd party lenses, yet still chose to feature an adapter for H lenses. (I don't know if the Fuji adapter has any corrector optics)
One of the reasons the camera was attractive to me, was that I own the 17,24, & 90 Canon T/S lenses, all superbly sharp and able cover the Fuji sensor with some movements left.
But that doesn't seem like a viable option.
I believe the Sony AR7II sensor is a sandwich and probably handles third party lenses better.
So I'll wait to see more actual users report.
Posted by: Michael Perini | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 09:35 PM
Under real world shooting conditions, I'm hard pressed to squeeze out every bit of 36MP goodness from my D810. And I've spent a lot of time and money chasing wunderkind optics like Zeiss manual focus lenses and perfecting my shooting techniques, but, if truth be told, I keep getting many great shots handheld on old Nikkor AIS glass where 36MP sensors are already all that is necessary.
Sometimes I reach 36MP FX sensor perfection in a captured image, especially with the Zeiss glass and a sturdy tripod, but more often than not, my image captures are not perfectionistically perfect in regard to maximum image sharpness achievable with a 36MP sensor. And typically, it's not the camera sensor limits at all, but the optics and camera vibration which limits the result.
So, I ask myself, "what actually happens in real world shooting with a digital medium format camera like the new Fuji, with so little MP increase over my Nikon D810, that we are splitting hairs on how bit a print you can make?"
Then, too, there are the other metrics like high ISO noise, dynamic range (I really mean exposure latitude), etc., to consider. However, at the end of the day, I think DOF at the chosen focal length necessary for desired field of view and at corresponding optimal apertures for image sharpness is perhaps the largest deciding difference between MF and FX digital formats today. I print big, and sensor noise is almost never the limiting factor. It's subject matter (i.e., whether high spatial frequencies need to be rendered successfully or not) and blur due to camera and subject movement which limits final image enlargement capability.
Given these constraints, and given that FX is going to peak in total image quality somewhere in the 50MP-80MP range for some years to come, I'd be looking for 100MP+MP out of an MF digital camera for me to even consider leaving FX for MF. And my pockets aren't infinitely deep. The price difference can't be 4:1 or more for twice the pixel count when evaluating MF versus FX. Perhaps, the Fuji GFX version 2 will be the ticket needed to truly differentiate MF versus FX sensor formats. The GFX isn't there yet, IMHO.
Posted by: MHMG | Friday, 05 May 2017 at 09:57 PM
". . . in the emerging larger-than-full-frame / cropped medium-format sensor camera realm."
Ken's descriptor is accurate, but awkward. Mike likes to define things.
What's the TOP approved naming convention to be?
FF+
MF-
Mutt
FF sliced in half is half-frame. 645 is really half-MF, 6x9 cut in half. To me, 6x6 is the smallest that really deserves the MF name.
Using frame height, to minimize format proportion differences, 44x33 is 37% larger than FF, and 45% smaller than 6 cm wide formats, so I'd vote for FF+.
The Phase One 53.7x40.4 format could then be MF-
Posted by: Moose | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 12:51 AM
"I always took it as a sign of ineptness on Sony's part that people rather use old manual focus lenses rather than their OEM offerings."
You may misunderstand what's going on for many people. I have several friends who want nothing more than a good FF back for their beloved old manual FF glass.
They are essentially brand agnostic for the "back", sometimes rabidly brand loyal for the old glass, and completely uninterested in the AF lenses for the back. Many were/are using Canon DSLRs, the almost universal recipient for MF lenses, as digital backs. As the only mirrorless FF body, with it's short register distance, the A7 line is the new universal recipient.
Focusing aids in live view make these lenses much easier to use well on mirrorless than DSLRs
The addition of IBIS makes the Sonys the only real choice for lovers of old glass who want digital backs. Various problems such as stack thickness, cover glass and other imperfections leave many unhappy and/or undecided.
Various patents lead to rumors and hopes for another player to get into FF mirrorless. Should that happen, with internal design more favorable to MF glass and as good/better IBIS, these hordes* will abandon Sonys like hot potatoes.
Me? I like crappy old glass with interesting flaws, LensBabies, soft focus lenses, old Nikkor Soft filters and such for the Alt parts of my photography. My A7 is perfect for that. I don't care about IBIS or IQ effects of stack thickness. I can't imagine what I would do with a Sony AF E-mount lens, well, sell it.
* Well, . . .
Posted by: Moose | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 01:15 AM
Funnily enough, I am considering purchasing an X-Pro2 and a Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 to throw on it instead of an XF lens. Maybe it's crazy, but it seems like a nice way to have that roughly 50mm, manual focus rangefinder experience and hopefully learn something more about photography. The only thing holding me back is that my battered little old Canon isn't holding me back as it is.
Posted by: Alex Paton | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 01:51 AM
I used to covet the Pentax 645Z with the same sensor. If I was going to buy that sensor now I would go for the Hassleblad X1D version, a much more elegant design and size. Yet I agree that the 50s is desired by more people than the Pentax or Hassleblad, probably due to the popularity of the Fuji X line of cameras.
Sony is already promoting a 100mp sensor in 33x44mm size, so I would expect these 3 companies to announce 645C, GFX 100S and X2D cameras for Photokina 2018 (C is for 100, get it?). I would wait for those if I was getting into medium format.
Last month I hit the shops to buy a new camera with a budget of 450 euros. I found a new, in the box, Panasonic GX7 with 14-42mm lens on closeout for 397 euros. I added 50 euros of insurance and now I am trolling e-vay for lenses since this is my first micro four thirds camera. The GX7 is an ergonomic masterpiece in every way (I have small hands).
It will probably be another 5 years before I can afford a new camera in the same price range, so all this medium format talk is purely theoretical for me, but I can safely say that if there is one guy who could blow all of his lottery winnings on photo gear that would be me!
Posted by: beuler | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 03:56 AM
Mike, you don't REALLY want this camera, do you? It's not stabilized.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 09:35 AM
One important use for adapted legacy glass that is a reason to not use Fuji lenses on a Fuji camera is camera movements.
On Sony A7-series cameras, you can use the excellent Canon TS lenses with a Metabones (or similar) adapter. Adapting medium format lenses to full frame sensors with tilt-shift adapter(s) is also a viable option on Sony.
For APS-C, Fuji doesn't make tilt-shift lenses, and I haven't seen them on the Fuji APS-C lens road map. I wonder if they'll ever make a series of T/S lenses for the GFX.
If you need camera movements, and you're a Fuji XF shooter, then legacy glass is your only option. I'm currently doing that with Olympus OM lenses on a Fuji X-T2 and am quite pleased with the results. (I also have a nice set of excellent Fuji glass for when I don't need movements.)
Some of the legacy glass that's out there is exceptionally good, even in comparison to modern lenses. I'm not even talking about Leica! I simply can't believe the quality of images that are produced with the humble Zuiko 50/1.8. Even shifted 8mm on a Fuji X-T2 it's extremely sharp and contrasty. Plus -- as a nice bonus -- the apertures on Olympus OM and Fuji X lenses turn the same way, and you can set the Fuji lenses to focus in the same direction as the Olympus OM lenses, so you don't have to think which way to turn each time you switch lenses!
Posted by: Rob de Loe | Saturday, 06 May 2017 at 05:40 PM
The data I;ve seen indicates the cover glass issue is moot.
Jim Kasson has a non-commercial, ad-free blog where he rigorously evaluates and tests new cameras and lenses that interest him. For about a month Jim published results from numerous adapted lenses along with other technical aspects of the GFX 50S.
Non-Fujinon lenses work quite well on the GFX 50S. But the Fujinon's (especially the 120mm lens) always work better. Looking at Jim's results, it's clear the cover glass is a non-issue. To be complete, there might be some optical designs that are more affected than others. But clearly there's going to be a lot of useful non-Fujinon lenses.
Here's a link to Jim's summary.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifill-gfx-50s-summary/
Posted by: William | Sunday, 07 May 2017 at 10:40 AM
This is why I love micro4/3: I have yet to find an adapted lens that doesn't work a treat on these cameras!
Yes, sure: they become manual.
Oh, hold on: they were manual to start with?...
Still the best decision of my digital camera life!
Posted by: Noons | Sunday, 07 May 2017 at 09:08 PM