Purportedly, Fujifilm is about to shake up the medium-format world with their upcoming 100mp fixed-lens GFX camera: GFX100RF. This upcoming model, rumored to be priced around $5,000, will feature a high resolution 100mp sensor paired with a fixed 35mm f/4 lens (28mm full-frame-equivalent, or 18.5mm APS-C-equivalent). Apparently, it will be about the same size as an X-Pro model. While this might sound like a dream camera for some, others may wonder whether it’s actually a good value—will it even be worthwhile at that price point. Let’s talk about this.
I want to start with this disclaimer: 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, or if any camera is 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. We will all know everything when it is announced in March, and, until then, it’s only speculation.
Some might see the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF camera as a fantastic value. Not all that long ago, a digital medium-format camera would set you back at least $10,000, if not $30,000 or even $60,000. When Pentax released the 50mp 645Z in 2014 at “only” $8,500, it shocked the camera world because it seemed to be impossibly inexpensive for what it was. Beginning in 2017, Fujifilm basically took things a step further, and in the process became the leader in medium-format, by offering the GFX50S and GFX50R for $6,500 and $4,500 respectively. Since then, prices have continued to come down while the capabilities of these cameras have increased.
The Fujifilm GFX100S II has an MSRP of $5,000. It has the same sensor and processor as the upcoming GFX100RF. A couple advantages of the GFX100S II are that it is an interchangeable-lens model, and it has IBIS; some disadvantages are that it is much bigger/heavier, it requires the purchase of a lens, and it is PASM (not the traditional Fujifilm tactile controls). Essentially, you exchange IBIS for a lens, and get a retro-styled body about the size of an X-Pro3. The most similar lenses in the GF lineup are the 30mm f/3.5 (closest focal-length) and 50mm f/3.5 (closest size), which cost $1,700 and $1,000 respectively. An argument can be made that the GFX100RF is an excellent value at “only” $5,000, considering that the lens is included.
The big advantage of the upcoming camera is, of course, size and weight, and the retro design. My speculation is that it will be the thinest ever digital medium-format body/lens combination, and maybe even the “smallest” (depending on exactly how one defines that). Comparisons will be made to the Hasselblad 907X (plus CFV 100C back) with the 45mm f/4 or 28mm f/4 lens, which is much more expensive at over $9,000 (interestingly, the Hasselblad does not have IBIS, and we’re talking about f/4 lenses…).
I think a lot of the complaints circling the internet about the upcoming GFX100RF are from those who were unlikely to buy the camera in the first place. There was always going to be an excuse. It doesn’t have IBIS. The maximum aperture is too small. It has a fixed lens. The cost is too much. If only the engineers had pulled off miracle after miracle after miracle, then they would purchase. But since the designers were limited to things like reality, what a stupid camera that nobody will buy! Of course, I disagree with that completely.
The lack of IBIS will deter some, no doubt. There’s a myth that more megapixels make camera shake more noticeable, but that’s simply not true. A blurry picture is blurry no matter the resolution, and a sharp picture is sharp no matter the resolution. The same rules for achieving sharp photos apply exactly the same to 10mp as 100mp. But that doesn’t mean IBIS isn’t a useful feature that’s worthwhile to have. Some see it as essential, and the lack of it on the GFX100RF will prevent them from purchasing; however, I don’t see this as a big issue for most potential buyers.
Also, the f/4 lens is not especially exciting. This maximum aperture is not uncommon on GFX lenses, and produces a depth-of-field similar to f/2 on APS-C. People looking at it from an APS-C or full-frame perspective might find it shocking, but those in the medium-format world will see it as pretty normal, similar to how f/2 is common for the X-series.
The proper take, in my opinion, is that this camera isn’t for everyone, or even for most. The GFX system as a whole is not for everyone, or even for most. The vast majority of photographers don’t need a GFX camera. Some do, and it is available for them. Some don’t, yet enjoy the system anyway. For the majority, the X-system is a better option, in terms of value, enjoyment, size, and even capabilities. It’s not “trash” or “dumb” just because you personally don’t need it, or because it doesn’t have all of the specs that you wished it would, or because it is priced above what you can reasonably pay for a new camera. I think it’s ok to say, “That camera will be nice, but it’s not for me.”
So, then, who will the GFX100RF be for? First, it will be compelling for those who want a compact and lightweight medium-format camera. The size/weight aspect alone will make it desirable. This camera will be great for roadtrips and exploring, something that the other GFX models are not especially ideal for. I suspect that a significant group of GFX owners will buy it as a second camera for this purpose. Second, it will be for those who prefer retro styling and traditional tactile controls. The only other retro GFX camera is the 50R, which is long-discontinued and approaching seven-years-old. While that camera was considered a bit of a sales flop, it has since gained a cult-like following. Retro for Fujifilm isn’t just about trendy styling, it’s about functionality and fun. Third, it will be seen by some as the long-overdue and long-hoped-for successor to the Fujifilm X70, which has grown in popularity over the last several years. The upcoming camera is certainly not a direct followup to the X70, but I think there are enough similarities that some will see it as a spiritual successor nonetheless. Fourth, it will be seen as a larger-sensor X100-like camera, so some of the hype of the X100VI will carry over to the GFX100RF. Fifth, it will serve as a gateway into GFX. The X100-series has been a lot of people’s introduction to Fujifilm; likewise, the GFX100RF will be some people’s first GFX camera. This is because it’s an all-in-one model, and no further investment is needed to get started. It’s a way to dip your toes into the pool before deciding if you want to jump all the way in. Between those five groups, I suspect that sales will be strong, but only time will tell just how well it does.
I really hope for conversion lenses—both wide and telephoto—like the X100-series has. I highly doubt that the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 will work on it (although it would blow my mind if they somehow did), but something similar should be made for the GFX100RF. A 0.9x wide-converter (25mm full-frame-equivalent, or 16.5mm APS-C-equivalent) or 0.8x wide-converter (22mm full-frame-equivalent, or 14.5mm APS-C-equivalent), and a 1.4x teleconverter (39mm full-frame-equivalent, 26mm APS-C-equivalent), would make the camera much more compelling. If these two conversion lenses were $500 or less each, and a compact three-lens “system” was possible for only $6,000, that would make it seem like a better bargain.
While some are suggesting that the price will cause the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF to be a bust, I really don’t think that will be the case; however, GFX is a niche line, and sales figures will never approach that of the X-series. It won’t sell nearly as many copies as the X100VI, or X-M5, or X-T5, etc.. But will it prove to be profitable? I’m pretty confident that it will. And if it is, I’m hopeful that it will convince Fujifilm to begin work on the GFX100R, a long-overdue successor to the GFX50R. If this camera does well, it might bring with it a whole new era of retro-style medium-format cameras.
See also:
Is IBIS Really Necessary? Is F/4 too Small?
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 80mm f/1.7:
Amazon, B&H, Wex
I hope you are right. If not, I am afraid the GFX100R will never exist, and I will be stuck with PASM GFX 100S models that copy the look of 35mm SLR’s instead of rangefinders or medium format film cameras.
At this point even Leica begins to look more attractive than the new Fujifilm! Will the GFX100RF compete with the Leica Q3, which is “only” full frame, but with what? 60mp resolution? And the 28mm f/1.7 lens is a stunningly excellent accomplishment, way more attractive than an f/4 medium format lens. To keep up, the GFX100RF would need an f/2.5 lens, no?
I don’t think (and this is purely speculation) that Fujifilm sees the GFX100RF as directly competing with the Leica Q3. Obviously to an extent it will, simply because some will be looking at both models and wondering which to buy. Leica people are Leica people, and they won’t likely be convinced to buy any GFX. I don’t think the number of non-Leica people deciding between the Q3 and some other camera are a huge group. Mostly, it will be people not necessarily even thinking about the Q3 or any Leica that will be buying. That’s my opinion, anyway.
Also, I think that on wide-angle lenses, unless you are photographing the night sky, the maximum aperture isn’t especially important. Probably using f/4 through f/11 a whole lot more than f/1.7, or even f/2.5.
An aperture of f/2.2 on GFX is about the same depth-of-field as f/1.7 on full-frame.
Heh heh. I must be some kind of mutant, to like the retro-style for which Fujifilm was originally known, but to also love Leica gear, which I mostly don’t buy just because it is so expensive. You don’t get much more retro and digital than a Leica M-whatever! I don’t have one, but I would if you cut the cost by 2/3. I do have a Leica d-lux7, which cost about the same as my Fujifilm X100vi, and performs similar functions. And a Leica CL with M to L adapter, which does nearly the same job as my Fujifilm Xpro2 with M to X adapter. And a bunch of Voigtlander and Zeiss M-mount manual lenses, which also get used on my GFX50R with M to G adapter. Seriously whacko combo of gear. So I am not the one to ask whether a GFX100RF or Leica Q3 is going to be a popular buy!
There’s definitely crossover Fujifilm to Leica, and a lot less Leica to Fujifilm. I don’t own any Leica cameras myself because they are too expensive, but also because I discovered not quite as good for straight-out-of-camera JPEGs (when I got to use a Q2 for a couple weeks). If I had tons of money, I would probably have a Leica or two, probably a Monochrom model.
Yo, Ritchie, I do have a monochrome, but guess what. It’s a Fujifilm! MaxMax converted an X-H1 for me. It was pretty expensive, but still a lot less than either Leica Monochrom.
Yeah, maybe I should do that. Might be a good use for my X-T30, which I don’t really use anymore.
Larry could you explain the conversion you’ve done to monochrome of your X-H1 as this is very interesting stuff? Is it as it should be like with IR conversion giving a huge boost in sensitivity? What about the monochrome results? Visible differences compared to the film simulations (as bluring stuff have been physically removed)? Last does the conversion kills the IBIS / dust removal capability?
Hi, Horus. I had just started testing the monochrome X-H1 against an unmodified one when I got both a GFX50R and a new 100vi, and I got distracted. I was having trouble getting consistent infinity focus results with the Fujifilm lenses, despite using manual focus, so I got a nice Voigtlander M-mount lens (50mm f/2 APO Lanthar) and a Fujifilm M-to-X adapter, which solved that problem right away and gave noticeably better image quality in all senses, across the board.
White balance was way off from any normal white balance, skewed toward very high magenta gain. Naturally, this is just what the camera software “thinks” it is seeing, since there is no actual color information from the sensor anymore. JPEGs from anything shot without a custom white balance are wildly magenta, while those shot with a proper white balance are mostly gray. Monochrome or Acros JPEGs are different as well. Those done with the custom white balance are similar to those from the unconverted camera; those done from a daylight (or any other) white balance are not.
Oddly, I did not find the large increase in sensitivity which you (and I) expected. Sharpness was only slightly improved. Overall contrast was not visibly different. I had not started the color tests with filters versus software, when I got pulled in other directions.
MaxMax disassembles the IBIS from the sensor before doing the monochrome conversion, then puts it all back together, for which they charge more than a non-IBIS camera. The ultrasonic sensor cleaner is like-wise preserved.
None of these observations are scientifically measured; they are just eyeball observations; but I was Kodak trained and tested in this field back when I was a photo lab technician, so I do know what to look for, even if I don’t have the gear to measure it properly now.
First impressions are that the conversion did not give image improvements worth the time or money involved. But tests are only half done, so first impressions may be wrong. I will get back to you when I have a more complete report.
Thanks for the thoughtful input. I found it quite interesting.
Very interesting answer Larry. Thank you. Especially with your knowledge and background. Very much appreciated 👍 👌
Let’s see how it goes then but it seems that B&W conversion is not that worthy compared to an IR or FS conversion.
This confirms only once again that Fuji is doing extremely good in film simulations and B&W photography.
Do only to wait if Fuji will do like Leica a pure B&W camera like it has done for Extended Spectrum.
But since it doing more than great with current design, I do not think they will go for it. Unless finding huge interest in potential customers. Let’s see how will do the GFX100RF as niche camera. I suspect that Fuji will not redo the listening they did for the XF35/1.0 which became due to design the XF50/1.0 and then a lot of people voting for it just said: ‘Ney’.
So I do not expect now much on that ground.
I wonder how the dedicated monochrome versions of the Leica M and Q compare to the regular full-color cameras. Do they have increased sensitivity and sharpness?
Larry, from the review and report I was able to grab, yes the Leica Monochrome cameras have increased sensitivity and sharpness + dedicated algorithms tuned by Leica (& Panasonic) to achieve the goal B&W only photography. Somehow on par compared to an IR conversion (on good sunny conditions of course for IR, as I’m experiencing with my X-E1 converted to 720nm).
Hence (also) the big interest and wishes of the Fuji community to get a monochrome camera from Fuji.
So I’m surprised but not at the same time given the long standing BW quality of the Fujis on that respect and compared to standard Leica too, cf. for exemple comparaisons made by Chris Niccolls on PetaPixel YouTube channel of BW photography with Leica vs Fuji vs Nikon vs Canon cameras.
Hence good to know that monochrome conversion did not gave the expected results.
I was wondering after my good experiences in IR & FS conversions.
So I’ll stick to FS & IR conversions only and wait for a hypothetical monochrome Fuji camera.
Horus, thanks for the creds, but don’t jump to too big a conclusion based on my half-finished tests. It occurs to me that RAW files might give more info, so I will check that out next.
And also, I had a nice IR 720nm Nikon D200, which did what it was meant to do really well.
And I still have a Nikon Z50 full spectrum conversion, which also does what it was meant to do really well, including (with the proper filters) the full IR stuff that the D200 did.
I chose Nikon cameras because there were lots of Nikon lenses with no hot-spot issues for IR work, and very few Fujifilm lenses that did well for IR. Full spectrum multi-band filter (like the IRchrome) photography does not seem to have the hot-spot problems that deep IR does, so Fuji is okay fir that.
Ho Larry, I’m not jumping.
Simply I’m not doing RAW.
Only SOOC jpeg. I just do like doing not post-editing and sitting long hours going through RAW files. I’ll spend already too much time on my computers for my work !
Hence if the BW conversion is that costly with not much direct concret effects like does IR or FS in SOOC photography like I’m doing (along Ritchie) well it is not worth it for me.
I prefer to keep that amount of money to grab a new lens or else.
So thank you again for this initial report.
Indeed for Nikkor lenses 👌
Plenty of choice especially on the AI and pre-Ai ones.
I used a couple of them a long time ago.
But now Fuji lens catalog has expended. And you have a lot of manual chinese lenses which are good and cheep alternatives with less coating / lenses design complexity. They can produce good results in IR.
But I love the Fujicrons for IR photography. Fir exemple all 3 f2 are just super great all the aperture way up.
I picked a XC35/2 for my X-E1 IR (no need of the WR and you can skip the aperture ring easily). It is simply glued on my X-E1 and dedicated to it. As sharing the lens design and AF motor of the XF35/2, the XC gives better AF and responsiveness to my X-E1, than the XF35/1.4 which gives at around f8 a small white spot. The f2 do not.
Rob Shea gives now a good list. He updated very recently.
Hence I’ve bought my IR filters (and especially the expensive IR Chrome) around the Fujicrons f2 filter lens diameters. Saved me a lot of money 😉
Last for pure UV photography on my FS camera, well like reported by Kolari Vision on its web site, the XF60 macro is great. Hawfull with a big white spot on IR since wide aperture but very usable in UV thanks to its less good coating on those wavelengths 👌
For those wondering about UV ‘leaks’ on the 60 macro, well just put a good brand MC UV filter (a Fuji ? 😉) and you’re fine with the issue.
So everyone has its own recipes 😉😉😉
Enjoy your WE Larry.
I have the x-t5 with the x100vi as my other camera for a different, more unique shooting experience. Previously had the V.
But the x100 is no longer really what I’dcall compact. It’s compact compared to my x-t5 only really because I don’t have the 27 2.8 and typically will take the x-t5 with other lenses.
Simply put the x100vi isn’t really different enough anymore. Same sensor and key features. The OVF only gets used for flash work and the majority of owners seem not to use it at all. And compared to the V, I need to stop down the VI more to get the answer level of sharpness. The lens was a highlight… now in 2025 with the 40Mp sensor it seems more of a weak spot. I accept that as “character”.
Use the x100vi with the WCL a lot
Had the x70 twice. Have eyed the GFX50R for some time – but too big, slow, and I don’t need the temptation for collecting even more lenses.
So the GFX100RF seemed a perfect fit as a concept. And I certainly could afford it, or the Q3 … also on the shortlist. And no $5k isn’t unreasonable. But not for the speca that are rumoured.
A pancake will always be slower than other options. And while an x-pro 3 sized camera might be compact for GFX, it’s not so compact that a slightly larger, slightly faster lens wouldn’t have been at home on it. I really hoped for an adapted 50mm f3.5. Only a slightly faster lens, but the focal length is key as it helps deliver a taster of the MF depth of field many would hope to experience. Then a WCL would make perfect sense and further sales for Fuji. So that’s one strike for me against this camera. And a pretty big one.
Strike two is the lack of ibis. Not because of more MP = more blur at the same SS. Never experienced that with the VI compared to the V. But you claim the F4 aperture is equivalent to F2 on APSC. Not for light gathering it’s not, for that it’s F4. And if we are to accept the F4 lens, or even a faster f3.5, ibis is a must. To maintain the shutter speed we need as light starts to fail we need something to help out, a fast aperture lens the best option, a tripod often being impractical ISO is usually the other option. With an F4 lens, we will need to bump the iso a lot sooner and a lot more. Fuji seems to be accepting we do that because GFX has better low light performance. But higher iso doesn’t only impact image noise, but colour and contrast. Taking the liberal pinch of salt, the x100vi ibis unit is rated at 6 stops. That’s the difference between iso 100 and iso 6400 between the two cameras, plus the two-stop advantage that camera has in the first place. If you need 1/125 to be sure of absolute unstabilised sharpness with the GFX100RF and iso 25600 to balance the exposure, bear in the mind the same shot could we taken with the VI at F2, 1/15 at iso 400.
Strike 3 is the lack of WR without an adaptor ring and filter (rumoured to be included).
That’s the basics of the camera. Currently on what we know, the x100vi will offer more depth of field, better low light ability and perhaps even performance so great the différence in iso needed could bem.
The useful extra dial functions can also easily be replicated already now on the x100vi.
So really the discussing feature is MF sensor that isn’t as capable as when in the ILC GFX cameras due to the lens. In have the cash in the hand, and that’s just not enough that I will actually spend it on a GFX100RF. It may be more expensive but the Leica seems much better value for money, sadly.
For your “strike one”, the GFX system as a whole is slow. Really slow. It requires a different approach. If speed is your thing, I don’t think GFX is for you, especially if the minor speed difference of a pancake lens bothers you; a GFX camera will drive you completely nuts.
For “strike two”, you said, “more mp = more blur at the same shutter speed” but that is a myth. It’s not true. It’s a lie that needs to die. It’s misinformation that has been debunked, but it’s been said so much across the internet that many people believe it to be true even though it isn’t. Also, I never said that f/4 is equivalent to f/2, only that the depth-of-field of f/4 on GFX is equivalent to f/2 on APS-C, which is true. I think the six stop IBIS of the X100VI is marketing fluff. From my experience, for the X100V vs X100VI (I own both cameras) the practical difference is two-and-a-third stops. I can get a sharp handheld on the X100V at 1/20 (actually as low as 1/4, but that was only one time, and I count it as luck), and I can get sharp handheld on the X100VI at 1/4 (I’ve gotten as slow as 1/2 a couple times). So arguably a three stops advantage at most for the X100VI over the X100V, but we’re talking extreme and rare circumstances. How often are you handholding below 1/20? I’m sure it’s not often whatsoever. But when you do need it, it’s there.
For “strike 3″… I have no issues with this approach on my X100V and VI. It’s much ado about nothing, especially if the adapter and filter are included.
Anyway, it really sounds like you weren’t going to like the camera (or any GFX, as GFX is slow and not about speed), so you don’t have to worry about spending the $5,000. There are many who will love it, though, but this isn’t a camera for everyone, or the majority. It’s a niche camera, and the market for it will be much smaller than any X-series model. Most people will pass on it for one reason or another, but in 10 years I have zero doubt it will be considered a cult classic.
I wonder how small this camera will be. The Xpro is not a small camera, nor very light, especially for APS-C. My Leica CL is noticeably smaller and lighter than my Xpro2. Both are quite small and light compared to the lightest GFX, the 50R. The X100 series is quite small in comparison to either, but the tiny lens is what makes the whole thing work. Even the smallest pancake lenses from Fujifilm and Leica are much bulkier and heavier than the X100 lens. Will the GFX100RF have a similarly compact lens? Then the entire package just might work. And f/4 might be acceptable. Too bad Fujifilm didn’t give the lens OIS, which is not as effective as the best IBIS, but not as large, heavy or expensive either. Leica does not claim an f/stop level effectiveness for the OIS in the Q3, but the in-lens OIS in my dlux7 is about 2 stops in the real world, so I would guess Leica would do at least that well in a much more expensive camera. Seems like a decent compromise between IBIS and nothing.
It will be small for GFX, smaller than the 50R. Not small compared to many APS-C models. I think the lens will be similar in size to the Fujinon 18mm f/2, but that is mere speculation. I think the X-Pro2 with the 18mm lens is a good rough estimation for the upcoming GFX, but we’ll have to wait to see exactly how it measures out.
Obviously Fujifilm engineers don’t get to develop whatever new products they like (it would be interesting if they did!) and before going ahead there will be a lot of careful thought on:
1 Does a sufficient market exist?
2 Is this the optimum use of development funds and resources?
3 Many other factors
It’s therefore certain they have a very clear idea of where they are going with this camera (assuming it even exists) and while that doesn’t guarantee success their opinions are far more valid than any casual Internet commenters.
With excellent high ISO quality these days I think f4 is adequate more most uses, and obviously is a lot cheaper and lighter than a 2.8 would be.
Some people will complain about the lack of a shallow dof option but imho that and the bokeh thing is a bit of a fad which I hope will pass. I used a 1.4 lens on SLRs for a long time and with hindsight I shot at maximum aperture far too often. I have now come to prefer more background detail so usually f4 is wide enough to provide that. I find extreme blur distracting and off-putting.
It used to be many years ago that if you said that you need a shallow depth-of-field (bokeh wasn’t a common term back then, and its meaning has changed a bit over time) with a wide-angle lens, people would have thought you an idiot. Unless you were photographing the stars or in a real pinch (too slow of film), you wouldn’t drop the aperture below f/4 with a wide-angle lens on a 35mm camera, and were more likely at f/8, f/11 or even f/16. Wide lenses aren’t for shallow depth-of-field, they are for context. That’s not to say that large apertures shouldn’t exist on some wide-angle lenses, only that the necessity of it has been greatly exaggerated, almost comically so.
I do believe that Fujifilm did market research, and determined that this camera fits a niche in the market, and they have a plan to successfully market it.
Too expensive for me, but that’s true of any GFX camera. 😉
The size does seem like a big plus–if it’s about the size of an X-Pro with 18/2, that’s a tonne of resolution in a reasonably-sized body. But that’s about it, IMHO.
It reminds me of the OM-3, which is at once too much and too little. It borrows a lot of internal power and speed from a flagship camera, but has the body of a fun, casual, retro-body camera without the same toughness (of both body and shutter) from the OM-1ii. It also lacks dual card slots or a higher-end EVF like you might find on a flagship model. However, it’s significantly more expensive than the OM-5, which probably does the retro fun casual body much better. While OM-1ii and OM-5 can both be great cameras, having one part way in between doesn’t automatically make sense.
For this GFX100RF, I feel that there’s a the core identity crisis coming from the fact that any GFX is probably too much camera for most folks, but fixed lens cameras aren’t flexible enough for folks who really need the GFX system for resolution and dynamic range.
And the sheer price of it is going to expose a lot of the flaws. For an MSRP $1400 x100v to lack IBIS and have an f/2 lens wasn’t necessarily a problem (although they did add IBIS to the x100vi). For a camera more than three times the price to have a lens that isn’t effectively faster, to have a sensor that isn’t as stabilized… it begins to feel like you’re paying a lot but not getting more. It’s got more resolution, but probably even X-Trans3 and X-Trans4 sensors have more resolution than most folks need.
Maybe there’s more folks in the sweet spot for this camera than I’d guess, more folks where it makes sense.
I think that the vast majority of people are better off with the X-series, with a camera like the X100VI, than with any GFX model. By far, most photographers have no need for GFX. An X80 (successor to the X70) would sell far more copies than the GFX100RF, not only because of price, but because of the practicality of it. Most people don’t need 40mp, let alone 100mp.
Where I see the GFX100RF making sense is simply this: small and fun medium-format. That doesn’t really exist right now, at least not in the current GFX lineup. I have no idea how large of a market there is for that, but I’m sure that it is smaller than any X-series camera. I do believe that it is large enough that the camera will be profitable.
I suspect motion blur is an issue with higher resolution. Say you have two sensors, one 24mp and one 48mp then when you move the camera on the 48mp camera you get double the speed per pixel on every pixel because they are closer together (less travel) by half (by 4 actually in 2 directions). I think it’s the same as a 25mm lens vs a 50mm lens
Regarding ibis it’s great not having to have to carry a tripod especially for landscape type shots.
Anyway I think $4000 or $5000 is too much for what amounts to a city/travel lens; really the x100v or vi is plenty of resolution for these types of shots and much smaller, lighter and faster
A nice camera (EVF based) + kit lens for $5000 would be appealing to me though and allows to grow into a system over time
I get the math theory, but it’s not true that higher resolution means blurry photos. I proved it here:
https://fujixweekly.com/2025/02/13/is-ibis-really-necessary-is-f-4-too-small/
I got a sharp photo without IBIS or OIS with 100mp on a 30mm lens at 1/13 handheld, and consistently at 1/25. That fits the “rule of thumb” for the focal length of the lens that is true no matter the resolution. For some reason, that myth has taken hold in the photo world, and a lot of people take it for gospel. I get why the theory “should” be true, but in real-world use the theory doesn’t hold water. I think, even if it were true, it shouldn’t matter because the blur would be distributed across a larger number of pixels, making it less noticeable when viewing the image at a normal size. In other words, even if the argument was true (which I don’t believe it is, based on my own experiments), it wouldn’t matter unless you cropped really deeply or printed very large.
I see some people suggest that the camera will require a tripod, but that doesn’t seem to be grounded in reality. For example, I don’t often shoot wide open, especially for landscapes, and especially with wide-angle lenses, and I almost never use a tripod. I have a couple in the back of the closet, but I couldn’t tell you the last time I dusted it off, it’s been months, maybe longer. Since the new camera is likely to have a leaf shutter, that helps a bit when pushing the limits of handheld shutter speeds, and I suspect it will be just fine without a tripod dawn to dusk.
I do agree that for most people, the X100V (which doesn’t have IBIS) or the X100VI (which does) is the “better” option. GFX is not for most people, not even close. The X-series is much more practical for the vast majority. For 99% of people, the X100VI will be a better buy than the GFX100RF. With that said, I do think the camera will sell quite well for a GFX model.
For the “nice camera + kit lens for $5,000” route, you’d need to buy used—in fact, you could do that for $4,000 without much trouble. Probably give it a few years, and there will be a new kit for 5K, since the general trend has been lower prices.
I very seldom use my X100vi, or my X-T5, at 40mp. The X100vi lens is not up to that resolution except in the center of the frame IMO, so it’s OK for digital crops but not much good for full frame at 40mp. I got rid of half my Fujifilm XF lenses last year, keeping only the ones I really liked and actually used, and guess what? The newer sharper 40mp-capable ones mostly got sold, and the older ones that needed less optical corrections got kept; so the 40mp capability of the X-T5 is also mostly unused by me. I am using very high quality FF manual focus lenses on my GFX50R, shooting in 1:1 square format (the full-frame lenses don’t cover the full 33x44mm sensor), which gives me 38mp, or 65:24 Xpan format, which gives me 25mp.
Never mind what resolution at which I am shooting, I love the availability of IBIS. Or if not IBIS, then in-lens OIS. Preferably both. When I need longer lenses but can’t use shorter shutter speeds, out come the Nikons!
I wish the GFX50R had IBIS too, not for action photography, but so I could shoot long exposure scenes with moving water and clouds without a tripod.
And I like IBIS in the X100vi and the X-T5 just to cover up some of the shake which my formerly steady hands have developed with age.
OIS was one of the reasons (besides a real zoom lens) that I got a Leica D-lux-7, back before the X100f got replaced by the X100vi.
So, I can and do live without IBIS, but I do appreciate it when it is available. I would have a hard time justifying spending $5000 on a camera without it. Sorry Fujifilm GFX100RF or used Leica M-10.
Irrespective of the size if you move a lens while shooting at a slow speed you will get ‘some of this and some of what is next to it’ so you lose contrast (you get an average of the content of the scene). If you have more pixel density more pixels will be averaged for a given time. We are basically talking sampling of the scene here. Yes 1/r may work but it depends on the rate of movement and shutter speed. 1/r is just a safe value for hand shake, some people are steady and or use good technique. Anyway I’m still thinking about this but I guess if you want to print large you want to make sure the camera has not moved while the shutter was open otherwise you may not get your GFX worth.
It may be difficult to see the difference and possibly impossible to see unless you view one to one as the only differences will be on edges
So what I did in my experiment was attempt to mimic the upcoming GFX100RF as much as possible with my GFX100S II and 30mm f/3.5 by turning off IBIS and using f/4 are smaller apertures. I had no issues until after sunset. Once the light faded I had to use slower shutter speeds, and once it dropped below 1/25, I began to get blurry results mixed with the sharp pictures. I didn’t get any sharp pictures below 1/13. At 1/13, it was mostly blurry pictures, and the sharp one I got seems to suffer a little from the bleed you described (although not terribly, it’s probably still good for a 16″x24′ print and nobody would notice). Above 1/13, that problem didn’t seem to exist. With a 35mm lens (instead of 30mm), the shutter would need to be increased by 1/3 stop; however, the leaf shutter (assuming it will have that), will help and possibly decrease the necessary shutter speed by 2/3 stop, so maybe it’s a wash. IBIS would definitely be helpful after dark, but the lack of it was a complete non-issue during the day, based on my experience replicating the use of the camera.
While it may be that more pixels increases the chance of tiny amounts of motion blur, you also have a lot more pixels to work with for sharpening, or just shrinking the image, or upscaling and sharpening and then shrinking.
The other thing: the pixel size of a 100mp GFX sensor is the same as a full frame camera at 64mp, or an APS-C camera at about 28mp. If an X-Trans4 camera is fine without IBIS, should be able to get by a GFX.
On the other hand, the upcoming camera is $5000. You shouldn’t have to “just get by.” If there was an x70ii with a 26mp sensor, 18mm f/2 lens, pocketable with a cost of about $1100 (cost of X-M5 plus half the XF 18/2), folks probably wouldn’t complain so much about lack of IBIS or OIS.
I would buy such a camera in a heartbeat. I hope that Fujifilm makes it.
Me too. The community is waiting a long time for a true successor of the X70.
But I’m quite interested though by the rumoured Half Frame camera from Fuji.
If it has the same format or smalller than the X70 and not too costly…
I’m still baffled by the premium price tag of the Instax Wide Evo, even if it has now at last a good sensor size (hence part of it price) but still it is the most expensive Instax camera to date (for Fujifilm of course).
About price of the X70 or XF10 have rocketted or at minimum way above in used conditions of the selling prices of brand new ones at the time theycame out! Insane like for the X100V. Just insane. But like wise the fashionable X100, pocket cameras demand has risen, so what could you expect.
In the meantime I’m still using my XQ2 when wanting to have an extra pocketable camera and using not my premium smartphone.
I cancelled my pre-order for the Instax Wide EVO, but only because I decided I really like the Instax square format best.
And I love my Fujifilm XF10! I know, I know, I would really really like a new X70, but the XF10 is not too bad.
I missed the XF10 as considering it too highly priced for a Bayer sensor with sluggish AF when it came out.
Then it was discontinued quickly and price get simply higher and higher instead of going down. If it was at half price second hand, I would have picked up for sure ! At this kind of price, would be perfect Fuji alternative to a GR despite some miss which could be totally forgiven and by-pass.
But not at the price of a X-S10 or the like used as we can found now on eBay!
For Instax I fully understand. I like the Square format a lot too. Got the SP3 as default Instax printer set on my cameras. And I got the Link (along the 2 others). I would wish now for a Square Evo so to replace my good looking analog SQ6.
The Evo are nice to take / review then print the good ones. Very handy. And on testing the Evo Wide as now the correct resolution and plenty of fun settings / option. A bit heavy but much less bulky than the analog versions ! Also the look is quite retro and futuristic at the same time (looks in a way a lot to the holographic camera that is using The Doctor in Star Trek Voyager 😉).
But I really prefer the bigger format of the Wide. I wish that Fuji do at last a firmware update to bring the Link Wide on all new models. I’ve several time to Fuji. Strange enough that ONLY the X-S10 received the possibility to use it (meaning all the new cameras could use it via a firmware update).
Ok Instax exposition (on walks, etc) I mix the 3 formats, but the Wide leads the ‘story’ always for me. Mini is great for giving on street photography.
Larry, enjoy your XF10 and Instax Square.