There’s been a lot of discussions about the rumored upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF, which might get announced next month. Supposedly, it will be a compact 100mp medium-format fixed-lens camera similar to the X100-series and about the size of an X-Pro3. It won’t have IBIS, and the lens will be 35mm f/4, which are major points of contention for some. I figured that this might be a good opportunity to explore if those two design choices will be crippling for the camera, or if it is much ado about nothing.
I don’t have any inside information on the upcoming camera. Fujifilm hasn’t shared anything about it with me, not even if there is a camera forthcoming. I only know as much as the next person, and what I do know I read on Fujirumors. Patrick has a pretty solid track record, so there’s a good chance that everything he has shared about the camera is correct, but until it is announced by Fujifilm, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. In other words, anytime that we’re discussing rumors, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
Personally, I’m really excited for the GFX100RF. I believe that an X100-like GFX camera is going to be a major success for Fujifilm. While I don’t anticipate it being as viral as the X100VI, I do think it will have strong demand. It’s also about time that Fujifilm offers a GFX camera with manual tactile controls (is not PASM). The only other one is the long-discontinued GFX50R. If the GFX100RF is a big success, I bet that Fujifilm will begin work on a long-hoped-for GFX50R successor. If sales of the GFX100RF turn out to be disappointing, I don’t anticipate a retro-styled GFX camera for a long time, if ever. In my opinion, this is a crucial release, a lot hinges on it.
The upcoming GFX100RF will essentially be the digital version of the Fujifilm GA645W, a fixed-lens 120 film camera from the 1990’s. The GA645W has a 45mm f/5.6 lens, which is 25mm full-frame-equivalent, and with a depth-of-field similar to f/3.2. The GFX100RF will have a 35mm f/4 lens, which is 28mm full-frame-equivalent, and with a depth-of-field similar to f/3.2. It’s not quite as wide as the GA645W, but pretty close. The Fujifilm X70, with its 18.5mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent) lens, might also be considered comparable.
Some people have said that f/4 is much too small for a maximum aperture on the upcoming GFX camera, since f/4 is not especially impressive. Unfortunately, a larger maximum aperture lens would require the camera to be bigger and heavier. Would an f/2.8 lens be nice? For sure, yes. But, at what cost? I’m sure Fujifilm was faced with a lot of difficult choices as they developed the prototype, and as they weighed the pros and cons, they made what they felt were the best decisions. So we have f/4, which is not uncommon for GFX. I count six GF lenses in the current lineup with a maximum aperture of f/4, plus two at f/3.5, and four with a maximum aperture smaller than f/4. Only five GF lenses have a maximum aperture larger than f/3.5. The decision to go with f/4 should not be all that surprising, and I doubt many—if any—in the GFX world were shocked by it.
GFX cameras are good for high-ISO photography. It’s kind of a paradox of digital medium-format: it’s good that it’s better at high-ISOs, because you’re going to need it, since the maximum apertures are typically not as large as smaller sensor formats. There are pros and cons to everything. Unsurprisingly, you’re going to find tradeoffs. It is what it is.
Not all Fujifilm cameras have in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS), but most of the GFX models do (only the original two don’t). There are a couple of situations where IBIS is especially helpful, plus a few where it can be nice to have. One is video. IBIS is not a requirement for video, but it is particularly convenient when handholding without a gimbal. Another is telephoto lenses. The longer the lens, the more useful IBIS is. Low-light situations without a tripod is an example of when it can be nice to have. For many circumstances, IBIS is not particularly necessary, especially for wide-angle lenses. Some who say that they need IBIS might discover that their photography wouldn’t suffer if it was turned off—they’re not giving themselves enough credit for how well they can hold still.
The rule of thumb is that, without IBIS, whatever the focal length of the lens is (or in the case of Fujifilm cameras, the full-frame-equivalent focal length), the minimum shutter speed should be a similar number. For example, if the X-series lens is 16mm, which is 24mm full-frame-equivalent, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/25. If the lens is 90mm, which has a full-frame-equivalent focal length of 135mm, the slowest hand-held shutter speed is around 1/125. With good techniques, you can often get a sharp picture with even slower shutter speeds. For the GFX100RF, with its 35mm lens (28mm full-frame-equivalent), the slowest hand-held shutter speed will be about 1/30.
There’s a myth floating around that IBIS is more necessary with 100mp sensors than with lower-resolution sensors. That’s simply not true. More resolution does not equal a bigger need for IBIS in order to get sharp photographs. A 100mp sensor has no more or less of a need for IBIS than a 12mp sensor. A sharp photo is a sharp photo no matter the resolution, and a blurry image is blurry no matter the resolution. The myth is false, and not based on reality.
I put all of this to the test yesterday. Obviously, I don’t have access to a GFX100RF. I’m sure some people have it in their hands right now, but I don’t. I do own a GFX100S II and a Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5 lens (which doesn’t have OIS). So I turned IBIS off. I kept the aperture at f/4 or smaller. I did my best to simulate the upcoming camera, although the GFX100S II is much larger and heavier, and with PASM. The 30mm lens is 24mm full-frame-equivalent (16mm on X-series), so a little wider than what the GFX100RF will have.
The f/4 maximum aperture wasn’t a major issue. Wide-angle photography is not known for shallow depths-of-field. While it is possible to achieve a shallow depth-of-field, I don’t anticipate this being a major selling point of the camera. I imagine that “f/8 and be there” will be a much more typical shooting philosophy. In low-light situations, I did have to increase the ISO higher than I would have had to if I had used my X-series gear, but thankfully the camera does well with high-ISO.
I tested handholding the camera at slow shutter speeds. Unsurprisingly, I consistently achieved sharp photographs at 1/25, with probably a 90% success rate. At 1/20, the success rate was closer to 60%. At 1/15, the success rate was probably 30%. I was able to get one sharp photo at 1/13. Because the lens on the GFX100RF will be a little less wide-angle, the shutter speed should be increased slightly. I suspect that it will be roughly a 90% rate at 1/30, 60% at 1/25, 30% at 1/20, and maybe 10% at 1/15. Obviously, results will vary from person-to-person, depending on your technique and ability to hold still.
While IBIS would have been a nice feature, I don’t think its exclusion is a major issue. I’m sure it was a compromise in order to keep the size, weight, and price down. This camera—like every other camera that’s ever been made—is not for everyone. It has advantages and disadvantages. It will be especially great for some situations and use-cases, and not so much for others. Personally, I plan to buy it; however, probably not on the announcement day. Like the GFX100S II, I’ll have to save up and probably sell some gear in order to afford it. I think it’s going to be a lot of fun, so I’m excited to try it someday when the opportunity comes.
See also:
10 Frames in New Mexico — Fujifilm GFX100S II XPan Photographs
Fujifilm Grain Comparison: GFX100S II vs. X-T5
Film Simulation Recipes for Fujifilm GFX Cameras
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm GFX100S II:
Amazon, B&H, Wex
Fujinon GF 30mm f/3.5:
Amazon, B&H, Wex
A well balanced post on the upcoming GFX100RF.
I concur with you about the rumoured specs: again a lot of fuss for something with is not even out yet, not even announced fully.
With my age, definitely IBIS us more than a plus. It made me migrate from the X-T2 to the X-T4 (then the size reduction of the X-T5 + new sensor / processor and AF made me switch arain along new film simulations) and from the X100V to VI.
BUT saying so I’m not bothered not having IBIS on my GFX50R. I go along without it, simply bumping to higher ISO and up to the maximum when I need to.
Digital organic grain from X-Trans as never been a problem for me on the contrary. And the twicked Bayer sensor with much bigger pixel physical size that has done Fujifilm on its GFX couple to the huge dynamic range is simply fantastic and give gorgeous results.
So why not going up on speed and ISO to compensate?? I find it really strange / old fashion way of thinking.
Yes at 100MP you need to he much precise on handling then 50MP, but still you den compensate. And you a lot of latitude to do do.
And yes it is all a matter of compromise, and given certain conditions you’ll not be able to do the sale way with a GFX100S II camera or the like which has IBIS.
But common what the point ???
Buy a GFX100S II then !
You have to need to rave limitations and compromise !
If not the GFX100RF will he bigger and much expensier, which will lead steal to complaints ! Common on !
If already Fujifilm is as rumoured able to keep the size of the GFX100RF around the size of a X-Pro3, with along it’s weight and sell a very good price compared to the current GFX line, it will be more a major achievement!
And as you say will page the way for new retro style GFX camera. I hope your it.
I love my GF50R, and will keep it, but it’s a brick ! Still light compared at the time to other medium format, but still a brick.
And from last generation, a GFX100R would be great to have.
Hence like you Ritchie I will buy the GFX100RF, silver one as being rumoured 😉 In fact when Patrick announced the 2 colour possibilities, it convince me to call my favourite reseler and be the very first on his list 😃
Now going to do pretty hard savings and decision making if I will resel gear to finance it.
We have to see also how Fujifilm will be able to deliver the GFX100RF and when.
Which might lead to other (here justified) complaints if it goes viral like the X100V and VI (hence why I registered already on my reseler list and to Fujifilm of my country).
I appreciate your kind and thoughtful response. I’d go with silver, too. It’s going to be such a fun camera, I think.
And f4 is not too small for me. In fact just the perfect sweet spot for me 👌
I love f4 constant zooms or lenses.
Like the XF16-80 or the XF18-120 or latest smallest pancake lens from Viltrox, the 28/4.5.
When I was on FF and Nikon, I loved my AF-S 24-120 f4.
Great alrounder zoom.
May I remind the rule of f4 ?
Around f4 you can just forget the aperture setting and shoot. 1 fixed parameter of the exposure triangle. Easy pizzy.
And as you reported on medium format this kind of aperture is normal. Indeed only a few GFX lenses go beyond. It is also as per optic laws / lens formula design! Hence such brighter medium format lenses are much bigger and much expensier. You cannot ask to have it all. And you should not. Really silly.
A lot of people who are complaining about it not being large enough are not in the GFX system, and have no idea just how normal it is. It would be like complaining about f/2 on X-series not being large enough, although it is very normal for it.
Most successful pro camera ever. Rolleiflex TLR. F2.8 80mm or press choice, F3.5 75mm. Never any shake below a 50th. Proper technique even with slow films.
Such a short lens makes IBIS surplus.
How often do you really shoot bigger than F4? If the glass is designed to be used wide open!
All back to technique. Not waving about long heavy kit. Just lock it to you head or gut, no shake. Love a flip up top viewfinder. Fuji has adequate AF plus class leading image cleanliness at higher ISOs. Better than Nikon or Canon.
Would love Canon’s self levelling.
Where are you from that the lovely Rolleiflex was the most successful pro camera ever? Where I come from, for studio work the Hasselblad 500C V-series was head and shoulders above everything else, almost always with the basic Zeiss 80mm f/2.8. And the Graflex Speedgraphic 4×5, with a variety of Kodak lenses, was there at press events. (Love that camera!) Until it was supplanted by a sea of Nikon’s. In my experience, I never saw the Rollei, even less than I saw a Leica M rangefinder (which was once) at an actual press event. Which is a shame, of course, since the Rollei is one of the nicest cameras ever made; and I certainly could not afford one at the time.
In the 50s, the Rollei was King. The ‘Blad was unobtanium. Plate cameras virtually gone. Even the Speed Graphic with lenses mounted on the Copal Press. Rollei for everything. When dad gave me my first. I had had a Zeis Ikon. It worked. At 10, my first Rollei.
By 1950, dad still pulled out his strange flash gear and his mahogany tripod. Just a Rollei, later my first Rollei, went on top. Plate cameras stayed in their leather suitcases. Dad used his Rolleis through the 70’s. I used them until the 80’s.
(I saw my first digital pic, Agfa. Apparently, file was 27mb. Probably still have a print. Big print, of a Rhine Castle.
I went away and ran IT departments.)
Portrait work, some studio where plates were still fighting a rear guard action. TeleRolei for heads.
Weddings and press plus general reportage, crime scenes, total dominance.
When dad was tasked with photographing the Coronation of QE II, he had the Keystone pair of ‘Blads.
I got the full intro as he checked them out like a Western gunfighter. First I had ever seen. I clearly was handling the best camera in the World. A privilege. The system concept just appeals to the be prepared engineer in me.
Suspect, only a major Press establishment could afford them.
The staff at Keystone, in the early 50’s, regarded Chris Garai’s Leica, as a nuisance. The bosses son’s pointless toy. Darkroom and film drying room was set up primarily, to centre on 120s by the hundred, feeding a pair of big drum glazers. Prints, if I remember, all 10 x 8. Police periodically swung by to check certain coverage.
Always wanted pin sharp back to front. So did the papers. What they got.
Those who couldn’t justify one, the Yashicamat was surprisingly good.
Then, the Nikon F1 became the press standard, later the OM1 and the ‘Blad more affordable. Weddings. Probably the last stronghold.
Maybe a Continent thing.
German kit was readily available and still legendary.
UK didn’t really take Kodak glass seriously.
In the UK, Rollei TLR meant a professionals camera.
Malcolm.
Fabulous! That answers my question, both time-wise and location, plus a lot more. Nice to have someone around whose photo experience way pre-dates mine. (I was not born until 1953.) Great to hear so much pre-Nikon history. Thanks for the beautiful reply!
Main issue:- You are still young I am the wrong side of 80.
The Rolleiflex was ubiquitous in the UK from ’48 to ’70.
The Speed Graphic had gone. The ‘Blad was simply unaffordable until the very late ’70s. 35mm film only cut it for Novoflex Rapid focus rigs, sport, military and surveillance applications. We had to wait for TriX, Hp4, Fp4 etc.
By the late ’70s, the UK press had largely switched to Olympus.
Two F1s equalled three OM1s.
Carrying two bodies, essential.
Having three, a bonus.
Malcolm.
Malcolm.
I loved flying in light planes, taking pix through the bottom of the plane, but I only did it for a year. Six might have been a bit much.
Greets, Larry.
I was a private pilot but it would have done me.
If you check, Keystone did a lot of air to air pix. Such an era for aviation. So many new designs and new liveries. Just so many pics. Don’t believe the air to air should have been too much of a problem. Air to ground however, something else.
Malcolm.
Even the smallest details are interesting. As lovely as the cameras were, the Olympus never took off as a system camera in the US. Nikon did. And then Canon did. Only Canon and Nikon made everything, not just nice cameras and basic lenses: motor drives, super-telephoto lenses, macro gear, ridiculous wide-angle lenses, TTL flash….
Photography happily existed for over 150 years without IBIS, and only suddenly it is a feature that every camera “must” have. It’s obviously useful, but it is important to remember that it has specific use cases (video, telephoto lenses) where it is handy, and it comes with tradeoffs (size, weight, cost, battery consumption). I’m not concerned in the least if a new model doesn’t have IBIS, especially a fixed wide lens camera that’s not really intended for videography.
Thank you so much for your feedback Malcom, and rest of this conversation Larry.
On order to assess the present, build the future, you need to know the past!
Having my family in the aerospace fields (which huge history being, especially at the early age of it with blind flight gear invention + WWII air fighting + cold war era), I relate to your story telling.
Plus my father as young adult living photography, I was reading all his photo news magazine with Rolleiflex and Hassenblad the Nikon & Canon adds and gear reviews.
I relate even more that my father has still his Yashica-C.
Boy I love taking picture with it.
I learned a lot with it 🥹
Taking shoots waist level via it’s beautiful and big viewfinder is a complete different experience than taking shots via our ‘tiny viewfinder’ (even though the X-T y / X-Hy and GFX have beautiful and large magnification ones) or worse handheld vua the rear screen or smartphone screens !
It is still in perfect shape. I should put back a roll in it 😉
Thanks to it, I was always looking at Nikon accessories for its F series (up to F4). So practical and neat. Never been able tought to grab an used waist level viewfinder for my late F3 HP 😢
Thanks again for sharing.
You might want to try a Mint TL70+ InstantFlex. It shoots Fuji square instantflex film prints, looks and works just like an old twin lens box camera with waist level finder, and has lots of manual controls. It is a bit pricey at $699, but I found a used one in excellent shape oh B&H for about $460. Loads of fun! And you make lots of new friends giving away the prints.
Extra very nice idea Larry for the TL70 + InstantFlex. Thanks for bringing it as loving Instax.
Looking it in EU, is quite a rarity for the moment.
And unfortunately bying at B&H, eBay or else in US is very costly from EU since a while.
I’ve done it reluctantly only once last year for my IR Kolari Vision filters to go along with my X-A3 Full Spectrum converted.
Importation and custom fees are deterent and simply keeping getting up.
With current US political situation and instable policy making + economical decisions, it has become sadly out of the question.
But if you can fit IBIS in a X100vi with 2mm more space and $100 more cost, it just seems stupid not to do so in the GFX100RF. What Fujifilm cameras first had IBIS? Not my beloved X-H1’s. Second generation GFX. We already have IBIS for this size camera; just make it smaller and cheaper like the X100vi. What could have been a slam dunk easy-peezy feature is now the biggest flaw in the camera’s appeal, or lack thereof. I myself never use IBIS in this sort of camera. But I find it ridiculous that it will not be available for those who do. As will many of the none-buyers who will say, you want me to pay how much for a camera without simple every-day modern technology?
Since GFX is double the size of APS-C, the IBIS unit is going to be at least double (maybe double squared?). Twice as large, twice as heavy, twice as expensive, twice as much battery consumption. I’m sure the Fujifilm engineers had long conversations and debates on whether to include IBIS, but ultimately found the inclusion of it to be too much of a tradeoff vs the ethos of the camera.
Those who are “non-buyers” due to lack of IBIS were not likely going to buy the camera even with IBIS. They would find some excuse. It’s like when the 200mm f/2 lens was “demanded” by the Fujifilm community… and when Fujifilm released it, nobody purchased it. Turns out that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. When Fujifilm made it to the specs that were demanded by the community (via polls on Fujirumors, if you remember), the lens was too large, heavy and expensive. Those who claimed that they would buy it found an excuse not to, because they weren’t serious in the first place. Same for those claiming that they won’t buy the GFX100RF without IBIS. If it had IBIS, it would be that the aperture isn’t large enough. If it had a larger aperture, it would be the focal length. If not the focal length, it would be the price. Etc., etc.. There will always be an excuse. Those who are series are undeterred by the lack of IBIS, which in all honesty just doesn’t do much for a fixed wide lens camera.
Actually the GFX sensor is nearly 4 times the size of the X100vi, so your point about weight and size and cost is even more valid. My point about the X100vi, though, was that the IBIS unit in that camera is much smaller and lighter and cheaper and more effective than the first IBIS in the X-H1, even though the sensors are the same size. Fujifilm engineers have made great advances in IBIS design for APS-C sensors; why not for GFX size sensors?
As for all the whiners who bitch about this and that but never buy anything, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And since they never buy anything anyway, they can just be ignored, don’t you think, as trolls should be. I doubt Fujifilm managers are dumb enough to make their product planning decisions based on what the blogs say.
On the other hand they never ask me either, dagnabbit, and I buy every new piece of gear that comes out, then sell it if I don’t like it. Unless it doesn’t have IBIS, of course…. Just kidding!
Yeah, I’m not a mathematician, so I wondered if it was double or double squared (x4). Thanks for clarifying. I think that, as Fujifilm continues to develop IBIS, it will get smaller, lighter, cheaper, and better, which we’ve already seen. As it does, it makes more and more sense to include it in more and more models, because the advantages will overshadow the disadvantages. I think we’re getting closer to that for all future cameras, but we’re not there yet, and for some cameras, the disadvantages might overshadow the advantages.
Fujifilm has never asked me, either. I think, in their initial research, the team will search the internet—blogs, forums, Fujirumors, etc.—to gauge the general interest, potential market and consumer desires, but after the initial research stage, it’s a small focus group that they use, mostly employees and X-Photographers (mainly in Japan). But I would love to provide input someday on a future camera, that would be an amazing opportunity, and I think I would be good at it. I doubt it will happen, but I’ll keep my fingers crossed just in case.
IBIS seems mostly necessary for avoiding the inundation of “Three Thousand Dollars (or more!) And No IBIS?” comments across the internet. While it could be pretty handy, considering the very high MP count, the bigger thing is just that IBIS is expected these days, and any camera, particularly a big expensive camera, that doesn’t have it is going to get a lot of bad buzz. Maybe the reasons for the bad buzz are somewhat misguided, but negative reactions are going to happen. Trying to convince someone that they shouldn’t be upset about a lack of IBIS seems likely to be a rough go.
//
As to 35/4, I don’t know that faster is necessary, but it isn’t particularly exciting to me. I think a lot of folks have experience with a 28mm f/2.8 lens, and it’s fine, but it’s not splashy. Entry level Nikon and Canon 28mm lenses are f/2.8. That’s also the rough equivalent of the 18/2 from Fuji, which is a fine lens, but it’s not exciting. The 18/1.4 is exciting, or the 28/1.7 on the Leica Q3.
If we’re thinking about cropping to FF area (a huge benefit of GFX is the 64mp Full Frame crops, which will rival any camera on the market), 35/4 also isn’t exciting. I’ve finally bought an autofocus 35mm lens (the Pentax HD FA 35/2), and that’s a wide enough aperture to start to be exciting. F/4 isn’t. It’s fine, but I don’t know it makes folks line up around the block to get it. Heck, the 23/2 on the x100 line has an equivalent depth of field of a 35/3, might be able to have shallower DOF than the medium format version.
I dunno. I guess I just don’t grok the entire GFX100RF project. 35mm feels like the wrong focal length to me. With 30mm, that’s going to be more dramatic, give you something wider than a Leica Q3 if shooting full sensor, but still crop down to an image that’s 28mm equivalent with more resolution. This has more resolution than a Q3, but it’s not wider. I figure a lot of the market for this camera is folks who might otherwise buy a Leica (or want to buy a Q and find it a bit too expensive), but I don’t know that the big issue with the Q3 is the lack of resolution. Having a wider lens than 28mm equivalent would give it another point of difference, and again, because of the size of the sensor, you can still shoot 28mm with perks over the Leica.
Alternately, something like a 55mm or 65mm lens, ideally f/2.8, that’s also somewhat splashier and more exciting. Not as wide, but portrait-wise it’s a lot more potent. Closer to the Fujica GS645 with the 75/3.4 lens, rather than the GA645W. To me, that’s the exciting Fuji 120 film camera (well, that or the “Texas Leica” Fujica 690 rangefinders). But even if it was a 65/2.8 in a GFX100RF, I probably wouldn’t buy one–I’m sure they’ll just be out of my price range, considering the x100vi felt like more than I wanted to spend, since I’ve already got an ILC Fuji.
But overall, I feel like the core use case for GFX is the massive image resolution and dynamic range, and seems like an interchangeable lens use case. The 30mm for landscapes, the 55/80/110 for portraits. The x100 seems like a really enjoyable camera, but I don’t feel like the core issue with it that you can’t get 100mp resolution. Extra-extra-extra resolution for a compact street shooter camera kinda doesn’t feel necessary. The GFX100RF seems more like a solution in search of a problem.
Yep. You nailed it. A fixed lens camera has to have a focal length and speed that appeals to a lot of people. If you miss on that, the rest of the camera is useless. Leica hit a lot of folks’ FF lens preference with the (also optically fabulous) 28mm /f1.7, but even then there were enough others to make a second model with a longer focal length sellable. You can see where the Q series should be going, can’t you? To multiple models of the same very expensive camera, each with a different focal length or speed lens? It just makes more sense to use interchangeable lenses. Which is where the GFX100R (not F) should have started, with 100mp and IBIS, and a photo-oriented retro-style camera. That way you get to choose which lens, or lenses, you prefer.
“We have fun playing with our cameras and taking pictures that never get published”.
That’s very well put Larry 👍👌 Exactly that and especially the last part !
The GFX100RF is the solution to the problem that GFX is big and heavy and overall not a “fun” system.
The people who complain that the camera doesn’t have IBIS and so won’t buy were not likely going to buy even with IBIS. They would have found some other excuse if it did have IBIS. Those who are serious about buying the camera are undeterred by the exclusion of IBIS, because it’s not a camera that “needs” IBIS (wide angle and not really for video). People will complain, but they were not going to buy.
While f/4 is not “exciting” the thing to remember is that it is equivalent to f/2 on APS-C. The X100-series with “only” an f/2 lens hasn’t been detrimental; in fact, the X100VI is extraordinarily successful… the X100V would have been, too, if only Fujifilm had increased manufacturing. I think the f/4 complaint is mostly from those who don’t own a GFX camera, and don’t realize just how “normal” it is.
As far as the 28mm equivalent focal-length, I agree on that. I think 24mm would have been more exciting. I personally would prefer something more of a 50mm-ish equivalent focal length. You cannot please everyone with a fixed focal length camera, and I’m sure their market research determined that the 28mm focal length was the most preferred by potential buyers.
Whether a retro-styled interchangeable-lens GFX camera comes in the future (a successor to the GFX50R) is likely dependent on the success of this camera. I think it will be a big success, but who knows?
@ Larry Adams – And yet, Leica hasn’t brought out an ILC version of the Q. Similar body and controls layout, EVF, L-Mount. Seems as though a camera like that would be a huge hit. Easy EVF for adapting M-Mount lenses with peaking and focus magnification, but also AF as an option. A small “rangefinder style” L-Mount camera seems like such a natural product for Leica.
But maybe they’d rather sell someone two copies of a Q3.
@ Ritchie Roesch – Size does seem like something it offers. Hadn’t really paid attention since it’s far out of price range, but with a body “about X-Pro3 size” that’s pretty reasonable. Just looked up some side-by-sides with the X-Pro3 and various GFX models, and the GFX 50R is about 50% thicker (66mm vs 46mm), with fairly minimal grip. I can see how it might be tricky to get IBIS into a camera that small for a sensor that big. And even if there was an updated ILC rangefinder-style GFX, it’d probably still be a pretty hefty kitten. Even if they made both, they’re probably really different beasts entirely.
While I’m not sure “small and fun” and 100mp are the most natural partners (the OM-3 just released as an awkward combination of too-flagship-for-fun and too-casual-for-pros), I’m sure there’s some number of folks who’d be glad to have one, and that it’ll be a very good camera in the end.
//
As to F/2 APS-C is fine… I think it’s also the price bracket. The x100vi was MSRP $1600. An 18mm f/2 version of the x100 line would be a big hit. But up the price to around $4000 and only being an APS-C f/2 seems a bit lackluster. There’s also the point of comparison to the X-Mount lenses. The standard options for Fuji are f/2 mostly. A lot of the options for GFX are faster than f/4. The 50 and 30 are f/3.5, the 45 and 63mm are f/2.8, among the “standard offering” primes. If the x100v had an f/2.8 lens instead of the f/2 from a Fujichron, that’d feel a bit weird. And I feel less that it’d make a difference in the shots, more it’d be a strike against it in reviews and perception.
Leica has not brought out an ILC version of the Q with L-mount lenses…
Nope. And they are not going to; they already have the SL, and they had the lovely CL for the half-frame version, before it was dropped. The next FF interchangeable lens Leica will not be an L-mount camera, it will be an EVF-only M-mount camera: no OVF, no rangefinder, just manual focus through EVF and back panel LCD. I have no information that this is true, by the way, just a big wish that it might be so. The only thing is, an M model without OVF and rangefinder would be much cheaper to build, so it could be considerably less expensive than the regular M series; would Leica consider selling a less expensive camera that could cut into M rangefinder sales? Like the Q, they might sell so many more that it is worth it, but who knows how Leica guys think?
Time to be real here.
I would suggest, the real photographic World doesn’t give a fig what Leica may or may not do. We do care what ‘Blads are available and their interoperability, directly or indirectly with other kit. Personally, I really care which wireless tethering sytems actually work, not sometimes but at a consistant pro level.
Supression of vibrations can be achieved no other way. I rely on the CamRanger2 but even that is not perfect. I would like to use my Smart TV as a tethering host. I would like my tethering software to run Live View in a separate window that I could then examine in full screen, on a large, OLED monitor.
I own a T5 for it’s greater resolution on a vignetted full frame image than the Canon R7. Also, quality does not drop off so readily at the higher ISOs. I love Fuji kit, most of my proper lenses are Fujinon A series, mounted to Copal Press shutters.
I hate the T5’s On/Off switch and the shutter button. I prefer the Nikon Menu System.
Macro work at higher magnifications can be really well served by a reversed enlarger lens mounted to a longer enlarger lens, this serving as a tube lens. Typically, a reversed 35mm onto a 150mm. Gives > 4:1. Use quality matching glass and the results are stunning. Novoflex Castel-M will facilitate stacking.
As such a set up will vignette, a C sized sensor serves best. I love my Nikon Zfc, especially the handling. Images are very good, Nikon colours are stunning.
At 4ft x 5ft though, 20mps doesn’t cut it. The Z7ii does it full frame. Vignetted Macro though, means the Canon R7 or the T series. I chose the T5 although I wish it had the Canon auto levelling. As I hold my bodies old school, the Canon would not work. Until I graduate to a Phase One back or similar / GFX100 type body, the T5 is doing the job. Proprietory RAWs are a big pain though.
As photographic gear has always had to be treated as diposable, I repeat, do photographers, not poseurs care about Leica?
Malcolm.
Hi, Malcomb. Agreed. I used to be a “real” photographer, by which I mean a professional. Way back (film era) when I was a pro I only used pro gear, a full Canon FD system, Mamiya RB67 (couldn’t afford Hasselblad) and Sinar view cameras, plus studio gear, with big lights both hot and strobe, and a working darkroom. But when I retired I got rid of all that film stuff and put together just fun stuff, like Fujifilm XF gear, older Nikon F stuff, newer Nikon Z stuff, a couple of “cheap” used Leica’s, a Fujifilm GFX50R, some Instax stuff, and a bunch of Cosina-made M-mount lenses named Voigtlander and Zeiss. Toys. The way I use them, anyway. It’s nothing like what I would be using if I were a professional! Yes, I know most Leica users (like me) are not pros. I suspect not many Fujifilm XF or Instax shooters are pros either though. But we have fun playing with our cameras and taking pictures that never get published. It may not be part of the “serious” photo world; it’s just a fun hobby at this level. Thanks for letting me spout off!
I have no doubt that some reviewers will give it a strike for “only” having an f/4 lens. I think of the X70 and Ricoh GR cameras, which have an 18mm f/2.8 lens (similar to f/5 on GFX), and those who own those cameras don’t complain about that. But, like you said, this is in a completely different price range, so perhaps not a fair comparison.
@ Larry Adams – I know there are some folks who wish for an EVF M-mount camera, but doesn’t it make more sense to have an L-Mount instead, considering the ease of adapting M lenses to it? From what I read, Leica’s adapter has a lot more functionality than an unconnected basic one from anywhere.
If the body is very close to an M-style body with the size, shape, and physical control dials, and can do double-duty with either M-lenses or L-lenses, seems like the best of both worlds.
@the Butterfig. Yes, it would make more sense to have L-mount camera rather than M-mount, except that doing so just for M-mount lenses using the excellent Leica M to L mount adapter tosses out most of the functions that the L-mount is capable of, such as auto-aperture and auto-focus. And if you make a camera with L functions for L lenses (like a FF version of the CL), then you have a more versatile, but more expensive camera. I would welcome a FF CL, but I think Leica would not want to undercut sales of the SL with a lower price-tier camera. Not that I know any such thing for a fact, it just looks to the average customer like Leica is always protecting its high-end high-priced gear from in-house competition. I love my light and petite CL and adapter, have no intention of buying a huge and heavy and exorbitantly priced SL, and I have a sneaky suspicion that Leica dropped the CL for that reason.
My lens are nearly all at their best at F:4. So, F:4 to F:11 it is.
If this Fuji glass cuts it wide open, F:4 is plenty for me. Also keeps the weight down.
I would like a truly quiet shutter, think Compur and the self leveling feature of the R9 would go down singing hymns.
Lens, a bit longer. I use a 60 or an 100mm equivalent as a standard. Walkabout, Canon 180mm macro, Fingered to anything.
40mm Voigtlander / Fringered to my T5 is also a favourite.
I use Nikon Zs. I have no Z Nikkors! I use Canon and some EOS fit glass. No Canon body!
My Novoflex rigs don’t seem to care.
As long as I can tether via my CamRanger 2.
Really don’t need IBIS for this application. No rear screen either. Just encourages sloppy habits. Learn how to lock your camera to your body.
Eye level, forehead with locked elbows. Waist level, gut and locked elbows. Get the important part!
Malcolm.
Yeah, I used to be young and steady, too. Now I am old and as trembly as willow. So I prop it on a wall.
Big Manfrotto tripod rules OK.
I am 80.
Malcolm.
I relate fully Larry.
Getting older and not anymore steady as used to be.
But still no tripod for me!
Might go for a monopod though 😉 Like I might do with my GFX50R (for the moment, higher ISO dies the trick).
Hence I’ll go nevertheless with no IBIS on the GFX100RF.
Final small point if anyone is interested.
Pretty sure my first Rollei TLR, a 1935, was courtesy of SIS.
Dad was appropriated by SIS, MI6 to the general public, for the duration of hostilities. He hated flying in light aircraft. He had some six years of it.
Flying, taking pix through the bottom of the plane, without chucking over the plates.
Malcolm.
I would add 2 things :
1) if Fuji as rumoured has been capable to squeeze into an X-Pro3 format (well will be definitely higher in height due to the inherant sensor size), nobody yet talked or rumored about which battery it will use !
It might very be in order to keep the size a NP-W126S.
I do no expect the bigger NP-W235.
For me to keep the X-Pro3 format is already a major engineering challenge that had forced a lot of compromise and new design..
I’ll be already glad that the GFX100R keep the smallest format possible.
You just need to pick 1 or 2 in your gag, like you do with your current Fuji gear. No trainer.
But I do expect a lot of people will complain (again) for not getting the NP-W235 (like they did fir the X100VI).
Already we have seen the major evolution they did from the huge and bulky IBIS system on the X-H1 to the tiny one on the X100VI. So let the engineers do their work.
Depending on it’s success, a next iteration will bring IBIS and other stuff, like we have seen the exquisite evolution of the X100 series. I hope (dream) for it.
For me I’ll be more than happy to get the tiniest GFX 100MP camera possible. And the tradeoffs will be interested shooting limitations to deal wity, giving other interesting possiblties thus expending the pleasure shooting with it.
But let’s see on next X Summit what Fuji has come up to. Only a couple of weeks of waiting.
2) On lens part, I do hope that Fuji has foreseen a TCL add-on for the GFX100RF, even WCL.
It would be awesome to get one, like the X100 has (and producing a lens add-on like they did too for the X70).
If not, I hope that third-parties will produce one (if of course the camera is successful).
This (or those) lens add-on(s), will definitely shut down the debate on not enough long or wide. I really hope.
I will definitely contact my Fujifilm country manager for requesting it(them) if no announcement is made.
I would not be surprised if it had the old NP-W126S battery. I hadn’t put much thought into the battery, but without IBIS, it might make sense …or, really, the use of that battery might have dictated no IBIS, and the choice of that battery might have been to keep the size and weight down as much as possible. We’ll find out soon enough, I suppose.
I do also hope for a WCL and TCL lens option. That would be really cool.