Fuji GFX 50S II

The Fuji GFX 50S II

Fuji recently made a flurry of new product introductions. All save one serve to tidy up the catalog. That is, they groom and rationalize the product lineup, keeping it logical and balanced and up to date (and no company is better at keeping its lineup logical and balanced than Fuji).

When a manufacturer constructs a product lineup, it has to consider all sorts of things—tiers and prices and overall completeness (that is, there should be neither "holes" in the lineup nor unnecessary duplications). And consumer tastes and expectations, naturally. But the manufacturer also has to deal with time. Individual products don't stay in stasis over time. Their place in the lineup and their suitability to their target niche changes, relative to competitors as well as to the company's own mix of offerings. Their meaning changes, you might say.

The original Fuji GFX 50S is a good case in point. When it came out in September 2016 it was Fuji's first and only 33x44mm ("medium" format or larger-than-FF, hereinafter referred to as large-format digital) offering. Accordingly it was a deluxe product with lavish features like its high-quality interchangeable viewfinder, and it had an initial price, $6,500, that was suitable for all it offered.

As the years went by, however, other Fuji large-format digital cameras followed. First, two years later, the then-price-leading GFX 50R, with its rangefinder-style body shape; then the ceiling-shattering high-megapixel GFX 100 in May of 2019; and most recently the more compact and less expensive "everyman" version, the 100-megapixel GFX 100S, in January of this year. Forward strides.

Weird limbo
Those later introductions gradually relegated the original GFX 50S to a weird sort of limbo in the lineup. Despite a considerable price adjustment, at $5,500 the GFX 50S was only $500 cheaper than the GFX 100S that has double its pixel count, and the GFX 50R, with the same pixel count, is not only newer but $1,000 cheaper—enough to make most of us stop and think. So while the GFX 50S made perfect sense in the lineup in 2016 and 2018, well, the times, as they say, changed.

I don't know sales numbers or popularity firsthand (Yr. Hmbl. Ed. just stands outside the shop window looking in), but Fuji has said that the GFX 50S sold greatly in excess of expectations at first. With the other three models now in the lineup, I imagine that situation probably reversed itself recently. Up till last week you could simply do better with your $5,500 even within Fuji's own lineup, never mind outside competition.

The Fuji GFX 50S II with its new 35–70mm kit lens

Hence the GFX 50S II. The revised model is interesting on its own, but a big part of its purpose is to adjust the position of the model within Fuji's current large-format digital lineup. It's now merely the "SLR-style" body shape version of the 51.4-MP-sensor tier in the line. Gone, along with its status as the one and only, is its position as the top of the line—and thus, gone as well is its deluxe viewfinder (a good reason to keep your GFX 50S if you already have one).

At $4,000 to start with, it's also the cheapest Fuji 33x44mm large-format digital body yet.

Of course, there are many of the upgrades one would expect after five years, and a tasty new feature the original didn't have. Y'all know what it is. But we'll get to that next.

Mike

P.S. This is the month that B&H Photo has a lot of closings, starting tomorrow. So if you want to get your name on the list for the new GFX 50S II, better do it today! (You can't pre-order when B&H is closed.)

Camera of the Week:
The full-frame mirrorless Canon EOS R6 features the same 20-MP CMOS image sensor and image processor as the EOS-1D X Mark III, and most of the up-to-the-minute features that anyone but a dedicated specialist could want. Plus native access to Canon's latest R lenses.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of our most recent Book of the Week, Bystander, as a link to The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dan: "This 'sort of big' format is just not doing it for me. I don’t see what the combination of this sensor and the slowish lenses Fuji has offered can do that differs from a good 35mm sensor and fast lenses. I’ll wait for the inevitable introduction of a reasonably priced true medium format camera. A 6x6 sensor at $6k or less would have me at 'hello.'"

Mike replies: Well, I have three comments, for what they're worth: first, we'd need to compare actual cameras and results to see if 33x44 differs, and how much, from various FF offerings. I don't shoot FF and medium format, so I'm not keyed in to the real-world differences enough to speak confidently about them.

Second, it's always been a useful seat-o'-the-pants rule of thumb for me that you have to skip a sensor size to see appreciable differences. (I got that from Ctein, I believe.) Thus, in my experience, FF is not really all that much better than APS-C; I mean, I can see it, but it's a little too subtle to really nourish my enthusiasm. This rule of thumb would predict that 33x44 might also be a little too close to FF. What you have to remember, though, is that Fuji's mainstream line is the X-series, which use APS-C sensors. So in that context, 33x44 is two sizes larger than APS-C and hence the GFX line provides a useful counterpoint to Fuji's other line. For Fuji to make APS-C cameras and 33x44 cameras makes a great deal more sense than for the company to make APS-C cameras and FF cameras. I like their choice, myself.

Third, remember that several very formidable industry players and lots of happy customers are invested (in several senses of that term) in FF, and thus it serves their collective interests to encourage and spread the notion that 33x44 doesn't really have any advantage. The larger format would be vulnerable to such rumors, too, because so few people have direct experience with it. My advice: stay open minded and trust your own eyes, not the popular conventional wisdom which might or might not amount to a subtle sort of brainwashing.

Greg Heins: "The 50S is truly one case where that accessory viewfinder makes the camera. I love it."

Comments

[Henk]

Why introducing new XF lenses when Fuji still can not deliver the Fujifilm XF 70-300mm F/4.0-5.6 R LM OIS WR introduced more than six months ago?

[Terry Burnes]

I'm hardly what I'd call a serious photographer, but photography is important to me as an avocation and hobby. And I appreciate having a place where I can regularly keep us with it and spend some time on it other than by making photographs.

TOP is the only place I've found that consistently reflects my sensibilities about this. I'm fairly certain that I could run into any TOP reader anywhere and find enough rapport with them to have at least a bit of fun or enjoyment, centered on photography or probably many other topics.

So I greatly appreciate what you do here and hope you keep it up, for awhile at least. And FWIW I haven't noticed any decline in TOP this past year, which has been difficult for all. It's a good thing you do and you do it well.

[hugh crawford]

In that top illustration of the Fuji GFX 50S II, it's set for remarkably bright light!

"The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades"

[Bob Johnston]

Plus one to Terry's thanks. I love this blog. I have the 70-300 Henk and I can tell you that it's worth the wait.

I can't see much point in the 50mp Fujis when you can get a "full frame" (I hate that phrase) 63mp Sony A7R IV camera that has a much wider range of lenses available, for less money.

[Albert Smith]

Henk asks, "Why introducing new XF lenses when Fuji still can not deliver..."

I too was thinking this. It is one thing to announce a product but it means nothing if customers can actually buy them.

I preordered the newly updated 27mm f/2.8 the day it showed up on Amazon, waited months after the official release to receive it and now watch those that waited to only dream of getting one.

I'm guessing that those wanting the new 33mm and/or 23mm will be lucky if the have them to take holiday pictures. Glad I'm satisfied with my 35mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/1.4 earlier generation lenses.

[Stephen Scharf]

Okay...where to start? From the perspective of someone who spent their career in scientific/engineering-based product development (not cameras, but hey, functionality is functionality. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a set of transfer functions), here's some thoughts for consideration:

1) I agree that Fujifilm is better than the other camera manufacturers at having a balanced product portfolio that meets the needs of the customers in the key market segments they compete in: amateur, enthusiast, and professional. They've read Blue Ocean Strategy (which I also recommend reading, Mike) and have stayed out of the red ocean of "full-frame" where the water is red from the blood of the Canon/Nikon/Sony/Panasonic/Leica all locked in a feeding frenzy for an ever-declining market. instead they've very intelligently stayed in the "blue Ocean" of APS-C (which lest, we forget, STILL sells more units than any other segment) and Medium Format. They've done this so effectively that it's safe to say they have become the "dominant incumbent" in the mirrorless APS-C and MF cameras & lens segments. By doing so, they should be able to remain profitable, even in a market where total unit sales is decreasing.

2) Camera companies don't compete in "target niches", they compete in market segments. The key distinction here is that a market segment has a large enough share of customers to be able to return a profit on the considerable cost of new product research, development, and last but certainly not least, transfer to Operations that they can keep in statistical control (if you think this is easy for high-tech products built to a very high endgineering specification such as...lenses, well, think again).

3) Customers:
Honestly, I don't think customer needs (which then lead to to customer requirements>product requirements>engineering specifications) have changed that much. Basicially, the vast majority of hobbyist/enthusiast customers just need their photos to be 1) in focus and 2) well-exposed. They don't need 30 FPS frame rates, or eye-control focus, or 8K/120P video. A lot of the "spec-chasing" that YouTube talking heads or forum geeks obssess about is frou-frou and just a lot of silliness, and does not map to actual customer needs in the REAL WORLD.

Professionals need AF that is "fit-for-purpose" (not less AF peformance than needed, but not more, either), reliable shutter mechanisms, and durable bodies that can take a pounding day in/day out and not break, and last but certainly not least, an excellent service, support, and repair infrastructure (this one gets forgotten about all the time). CPS still does this better than anyone, BTW.

As for the new GF5OS II...it reflects a predictable development in terms of features and functionalty. It takes time (years) to develop a completely new line of cameras and...most significantly, lenses. Fuji took all the profits from the original GFX50S, and plowed it back into developing a range of cameras that perform their requisite functions and provide their features more effectively (doing the right thing) and efficiently (doing things right). Features and functions increase, and costs go down, which in the end, means more VALUE given the equation: VALUE=QUALITY/PRICE.

They are very effective at their product development process and they continue to provide more VALUE for their customers. So good on Fujifilm for gettin' it right.

[Ah, thank you, I couldn't remember the term "segment" when I was writing that. --Mike]

[Stephen Scharf]

Regarding the XF 70-300 lens...

Guys, let's not second-guess why this lens has been delayed with respect to shipping. If I were to hazard a guess, it's due to the significant impact the pandemic has had on manufacturing. Folks that are not in this sector don't really understand: the COVID pandemic had a major, and I mean, MAJOR, impact on new product manufacturing, with impacts ranging from the availabiity and costs of raw materials, "chips", supply chain and logistics, just to name a few, being significantly impacted. The cost of steel, for example is up...220%. I write for a high-end audio magazine, and the manufacturs of high-end audio gear tell me that the pandemic has significantly impacted thier Manufacturing Operations. Logistics and supply chain has been a nightmare for all engineering-based product manufacturers, regardless of industry, with both with respect to cost and availability of raw materials and...finished goods sitting in Customs for indefinite periods of time, just to name a few of the problems. Even manufacturing and buying copper for wire and conductors has been significantly impacted because of the impact of the pandemic on metals foundries.

So..consider cutting Fujifilm a break here, they're doing the best they can in considerably challenging times.

[Henk]

@Stephen Scharf: I know Corona may be the reason of delayed deliveries, my point is why introducing new lenses when you obviously have a delivery problem (like your competitors have too)? Why not just wait until you have solved this?