All About the Medium: The New Mark II Version of the Fuji GFX100

The best camera Fuji has ever made? The lens
is the GF 32–64mm (25–51mm-e).

The other newly refreshed camera of note is at the other end of the sensor-size spectrum from the G9II: it's the new Mark II version of the larger-than-FF-sensor GFX100. It's Fuji's new flagship, meaning the camera that Fuji itself considers to be the best the company makes.

Curiously, it's another camera labeled as a refresh—usually a rather "meh" or "blah" event in my view—that is actually a new design. The new camera doesn't use remotely the same body shape as the large, "phone book" pro-style GFX100, with its built-in vertical grip: here's the Fuji GFX100II next to the Fuji GFX100. Nor does it mimic the body of the GFX100S, the former "lite" version of the original GFX100. Here's that comparison. Unlike the Panasonic, though, the GFX100II doesn't borrow another existing body style; it appears to be all-new. Couldn't they just have called it the GFX102? Or the GFX110?

And a handsome bugger it is, too. Very sorted-looking, very put together. This one will turn heads on the boulevard. The existing camera it most resembles, to my eye anyway, is the FF Leica SL series; here's a link to that comparison. Except the Leica has always looked like it's trying a bit too hard to be "styley," wearing its design-y pretensions on its sleeve, a fashionista who's stealing a glance at you out of the corner of her eye to make sure you're looking at her. The Fuji manages to be even more stylish while looking more cameralike, less Bauhaus, all business, like the woman who looks great in her clothes but doesn't care what you think*. Very nicely-designed, nice-looking camera.

Professional system camera
Again, this shouldn't be an after thought, but there are new lenses as well, aimed squarely at professionals: the GF 30mm ƒ5.6 Tilt-Shift (24mm-equivalent) and the GF 110mm ƒ/5.6 Tilt-Shift Macro (87mm-e). (I remember when Canon introduced the three tilt-shifts for the EOS system. A Canon official explained to me at the time that each lens might lose money as a standalone product, but that their presence in the lineup was expected to entice professionals to switch to Canon EOS, which would repay them richly with sales overall.)

One blogger thinks The GFX100II is meant to split the difference between the two earlier cameras, embodying the best of both. It splits the difference neatly in terms of price, at least: the GFX100 was ~$10k, the GFX100S was ~$5k, and the GFX100II comes in right down the middle at $7,500. It's a poor** person's alternative to the upcoming Leica S3 replacement. The nifty tilting viewfinder attachment, the built-in diopter correction on the side of the "prism" housing, a whopping 9.44-million-dot EVF, too many other features 'n' functions to list, and of course the 102-MP resolution, are going to make it a powerhouse image-maker. (That's the word, powerhouse, and mere mortals have no doubt.) Oh, and upgraded IS—the only way to express IBIS is in however many fewer stops of light it allows you to shoot hand-held. These numbers keep inflating, like the prices of consumer goods lately. I think the GFX 100II claims 80 stops...or is it 800? Something like that. You can handhold that shot you need of the black fisher-cat speeding silently through the dark woods on a moonless, pitch-black night. At a small aperture.

Let's get serious
However, this...

...Is how it's really meant to be used. (That's a frame-grab from this video. The videographer is Ahmet Bayer.) Most of the GFX 100II's gleaming new features are of course video-centric, still imagemaking being so despicably 20th-century (easy, Mike...). The B&H page talks breathlessly about 4k/60p video, "12-bit 4:2:2 Apple ProRes RAW or Blackmagic RAW," aspect ratios for multiple cinema formats, compatibility with Fujinon Premista and Cabrio cine lenses, and—be still, my beating heart—frame.io camera-to-cloud integration so I can finally "utilize the camera's built-in Wi-Fi or Ethernet LAN connection to connect to Frame.io and deliver hi-res raw or JPEG images, send h.264 video proxies, or upload 8K ProRes video securely for review." You're going to scorn me if you know what all those things mean, because I don't. 

Of course, you can ignore all that, and just use the $4k worth of features you need for stills.

I'm just playin'; don't think I'm bitter. To each what he or she needs. My own camera was actually made for video, and I have it set up just beautifully for exactly what I want it to do. So, no harm, no foul. I'm just not a video person, is all. I try to watch a half dozen or so movies every year, but that's not always easy because I don't tend to enjoy them. The last three I've watched fell short for me. Anyway, I'm just not interested in video features on a camera—I would far rather buy cameras that don't even offer video. But of course they all do now. Am I getting off the subject?

Anyway: Fuji's new medium-format flagship looks to be a tour-de-force, with everything it's done so far in the larger-than-FF format all rolled neatly into one camera.

Mike

*Calm down, metaphor-man.

**!!

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "The Hasselblad X2D offers no video. It also has an elegant but not lavish design, superb ergonomics and a simple menu interface. If I weren’t already satisfied with the Leica SL2, which has easy-to-ignore video controls, that’s what I’d buy."

hugh crawford: "Don’t you think that Fuji is competing with the Hasselblad X2D 100C? That is certainly the pair that I would be cross-shopping, the Fuji with more features or clutter, depending on how you look at it, and the Hasselblad with a leaf shutter. I’d go with the Hasselblad myself being a leaf shutter and strobe guy."

[Ed note: The two comments above came in right next to each other. It always tickles me when that happens, whether the comments say the same thing or the opposite thing. Here are those two cameras next to each other.]

Ken Bennett: "Hey, Mike, good preview and I agree with you on the whole video thing. Shows my age, I guess. Anyway I have the original GFX100 at work, with some of Fuji's excellent lenses, and it's an interesting camera. It reminds me of the original Canon D30, from 2001—lovely files from an almost unusable camera body. Seriously, the user interface is so bad I regularly want to throw it against the wall. But the files, just wow. So I'm getting ready to retire, and thinking about what kind of gear I can use when I have to give back the Fuji MF. Like, what am I going to shoot? I have a complete Fuji X system, so I'm covered for just about any kind of work, but once you've worked with those 100-MP files, and have seen how much dynamic range they have, and how much detail, it's hard to let that go. On the other hand, a reasonably low cost GFX system with the Mark II and three zoom lenses is $15k. Hmm. Still not sure what I'm going to do, to be honest."

Roger: "I recently bought a GFX 50SII. With Fuji’s sale I got the body and the (amazing) kit lens for less than a Sony A7RV body. Seriously more camera than I need, but so what. The price of that camera begs the question: with sensors so much more affordable why aren’t we getting cameras with square sensors? There’d be no need to reorient the camera for vertical shots, there would a larger option with a 1:1 ratio, and current lenses would cover the entire sensor. Heck, a 24x24mm sensor might make Micro 4/3 more appealing."

Comments

[Eric Brody]

I'm a former 4x5 user who now uses a Sony A7RV, the best camera I've EVER owned, and that includes Hasselblad and Minox :-). I consider myself a detail freak and love sharpness. The Sony delivers on all counts. I rented a MF Fuji and talked myself into believing it was superior but when careful compared at reasonable sizes, the prints (notice I said prints, not 200% on a monitor) were so close as to be essentially indistinguishable.

And, the lenses... Sony GM lenses are both expensive and relatively heavy, but compared to those for Fuji, they are both small and cheap. And the choices for Sony are overwhelming broad (except tilt shift) and include impressive ones from third parties such as Voightlander whose 50 and 65 APO-Lanthars are truly reference lenses.

After all that ranting, I am certain there are some for whom this Fuji will check all the boxes and make them happy. Great, for what I do (and I don't do video either-that's what iPhones are for), the Fuji, while lovely, holds no appeal.

[MikeR]

re movies: have you tried "Barbie?"

Seriously ... I mean it.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I certainly agree that the new GFX100 II is primarily aimed at bi-modal photographers and videographers. Nearly every new feature seems aimed at that target. As an owner of the GFX100S who does not shoot video I have no interest in the II; the 100S has everything I could want in such a camera and has a much friendlier body design. But if I had to shoot video with a "large-sensor" camera the GFX100 II would be in my sights. (That franken-cam image of the GFX100 II tricked-out for movie making is exactly what that boxy slab body would be well-suited for.)

@ Hugh Crawford: No, the GFX100 II isn't aiming at the Hasselblad X2D 100C (which I also own). As Jeff noted, the X2D is purely a stills camera. It's (likely) built around the same Sony 44x33 100mp sensor as the GFX cameras but distinguishes itself with remarkably smooth, modern user interface and absolutely sublime lenses and image quality. But even with some limited phase-detect AF (in the new V lenses) it's really no match for Fuji's GFX system in terms of focus-shoot speed.

@ Eric Brody: I have to agree that the Sony A7R V is the best all-arounder camera I've ever owned and used, too. It has become the camera I reach for when I'm not sure what I'll be facing. (Canon had that spot for me for 20 years.) Sony's menu system is still modeled after a nuclear power plant's control room (to me) but it's certainly simpler and easier to customize than ever.

[Chris Kern]

Mike: I try to watch a half dozen or so movies every year, but that's not always easy because I don't tend to enjoy them. The last three I've watched fell short for me.

Forget about short: go long. Specifically, Bernardo Bertolucci’s epic Novecento (a.k.a., 1900). It has a runtime of a little over five hours (sic), and occasionally is somewhat tendentious, but it is anything but boring and this 1976 film is a milestone of 20th-Century movie-making; I doubt we will see its like again. It’s a classic example of what a talented director can pull off by ignoring the constraints of the commercial motion picture industry. Currently available in the United States and probably elsewhere on multiple streaming services.

[John Camp]

That Hasselblad is an elegant beast. The "light portrait" two-lens kit can be yours for only a bit over $13,000. I simply can't think of a use for it (or the Fuji) for almost any amateurs and even most professionals. Kirk Tuck recently explained to me why *some* professionals need them, for uses like extra-large (many-feet by many-feet) prints that will be examined at close range.

And if you're a serious pro, who needs one, you might actually need two of them...

Apropos of nothing, a majority stake in Hasselblad has been purchased by a Chinese company.

[kirk]

"Except the Leica has always looked like it's trying a bit too hard to be "styley," wearing its design-y pretensions on its sleeve, a fashionista who's stealing a glance at you out of the corner of her eye to make sure you're looking at her. The Fuji manages to be even more stylish while looking more cameralike, less Bauhaus, all business, like the woman who looks great in her clothes but doesn't care what you think*. " -MJ

Maybe just a little bit over the top?

[Did you catch the footnote? (And, I am nothing if not over the top.) --Mike]

[Kye Wood]

A written camera review? How quaint.

Article request: A time (or times) when you fortuitously had the exact right camera and lens with you - and you got photos that made you and/or significant others happy as a result.

[Matt O'Brien]

I seriously considered the Fuji medium format camera, but abandoned the idea when I discovered how slow the read speed was from the sensor.

Instead I bought the a7RV. My view is that the original A7 was the worst camera I ever purchased (ergonomics were horrific and a serious barrier to use) ... but the current A7RV is as close to the camera I would design for my self ... with 2 exceptions.

1. I would strip out every function which relates to video (even though I am glad it has a specific video mode button... which helps a lot) .... and
2. The read speed from the sensor is still slower than I would like .... but I accept that some features are only kept for the flagship camera.

The weird thing is that I also recently bought the A6700 as my walkabout / jacket pocket camera and a lot of the auto focus features on this pocket battleship exceed the A1.

Glad to see usability becoming a more important key feature.

[robert e]

Point taken about resemblance to the Leica SL. I believe the Lumix S5 mentioned the other day is a closer match to the latter in terms of metrics, but with a defiantly unstylish approach.

Trying to verify my memory, I just noticed that Camerasize.com has an "average male hand" image that you can put next to the cameras. Made me chuckle, but it is a good idea.

[Basil Steinle]

Still wondering why we’re referring to digital image sensors as micro, full, and medium. Shouldn’t “full” be “medium” and “medium” be “large?”