Ever since Fujifilm announced the GFX100RF back in April of last year, I’ve been saving up to purchase one. The desire for such a camera dates back 25+ years ago to my analog days, when I really wanted to shoot medium-format film. Cameras like the Contax 645, Pentax 645, and Fujica GS645 were all high on my list, but always just out of reach. In fact, in my early 20’s I sold my beloved Canon AE-1 with the intentions of using the profits (along with some other cash I had) to finally jump into medium-format photography; however, some unexpected car repairs sucked all that money up instead, and it never happened.
Now that I’m older, I’m not all that interested in medium-format film photography. I’m very happy with the image quality and aesthetics from my Fujifilm cameras (an understatement, if there ever was one), and the smaller size of the gear is much more ideal for me. Still, the larger sensor and higher resolution from GFX cameras does open some doors. For example, I’ve discovered that I really enjoy the XPan aspect ratio—while the 40mp X-series can be good for that (I wish that Fujifilm offered the crop in-camera), the 100mp GFX sensor is better, and the aspect ratio is available on GFX models. I purchased a GFX100S II back in 2024 with the purpose of making panoramas, but I found it’s harder to travel with that camera due to its bulk. Amanda likes it for portrait photography, so it has found a place in our house, but it’s not really serving my original purpose for it.
Enter the GFX100RF. It’s the smallest and lightest digital medium-format camera and lens combo, about the size and weight of an X-Pro3 with a “Fujicron” lens, roughly speaking. It’s definitely not pocketable, but it’s very small for medium-format. Of all the GFX cameras, this is the one that’s most easily portable. It’s also the most affordable, when considering that the lens is built-in. Of course, some will say that’s not really medium-format, but more of a super-full-frame; however, in my opinion, that’s splitting hairs. Call it what you want, the image quality speaks for itself.
The camera seems to be misunderstood by some, and I think it’s because so many compared it to the X100VI in the initial hype. The GFX100RF is not a medium-format X100VI; instead, it’s a medium-format X70. That’s not entirely 1:1, but it is much more accurate than saying it’s like the X100-series. While it doesn’t make sense for the GFX naming system, if Fujifilm had called it the GFX70RF, it likely would have cleared up the confusion. This is one of only two GFX cameras with the traditional tactile controls (the long discontinued GFX 50R is the other), and I much prefer this setup over the PASM design of the GFX100S II. In my opinion, Fujifilm should make a GFX100R, a successor to the 50R.
Earlier this year someone loaned me their GFX100RF for a couple of months. I cannot overstate how kind and generous that was! Seriously, who does that?! I’m incredibly thankful and appreciative. I very much enjoyed the extended test drive, and it only solidified my desire to own one someday. I continued to save, and finally was able to purchase one 15 months after it was announced. I went with the silver version because of course I did—I love the silver cameras! I captured my first image with it yesterday. As I was programming the C1-C7, I got a weather alert on my phone stating that a dust storm was approaching my location—and right at sunset! I grabbed the camera, headed to an overlook, and snapped my first photograph, which is above. I’m sure it won’t win any awards, but definitely not bad for the very first picture.
I’m working on a project that the GFX100RF is perfect for. I’ve done a little work on it already, but the bulk of it starts next week. I can’t wait to share it with you when the time is right (probably in the fall), so stay tuned! In the meantime, below are some pictures I captured using the borrowed GFX100RF. If Fujifilm made a version of the GFX100RF with a different focal-length, I would love that personally. I know that some would like an even wider lens; for me, something closer to a nifty-fifty would be perfect. Until that happens (which might be never), I’ll enjoy this camera for what it is, and not worry about what it’s not.
This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.
Fujifilm GFX100RF in black:
Amazon, B&H, Nuzira
Fujifilm GFX100RF in silver:
Amazon, B&H, Nuzira
Great vibe in these photos!
Thank you!
My big congratulations Ritchie for your GFX100RF. Finally you succeeded to get one 👏👍
Welcome to the happy club 😉
Good choice for the Silver on 👌
I love too silver layout generally and by default (my X-T5, X-E5 & X100VI are, no brainer), but for GFX100RF I hesitated quite a bit (usually never the case).
I found the monobloc (what a piece of engineering, like done afterwards with the X-E5) to be too much silver ratio vs the rest of boby compared to an X cameras where it is more ‘balanced’.
So I went for the black version. Black is sexy too. Also with such a bigger and expensive body less ‘visible’…
But definitely it broke for me an habbit in itself.
Nevertheless, I love the body shape, gorgeous design (a step up even further from the X100V or VI), and weight (not as a brick as my GFX50R – without any lenses attached too! A like you stated for yourself).
Perfect medium format traveling camera.
Do I miss the IBIS? Yes! But common we can do without it as we were doing without ages ago! Even if with age and in certain light conditions it would be definitely more than a big asset. Also like you, I’m more on the longer focal lens range, so I found it a too wide.
I’ve difficulties with current trend of going wider and wider…
But combining both IBIS and longer lens, as many times said the engineers would have a produced a much much bulkier camera, defieting the purpose of the RF concept: having the lightest and smallest medium single lens camera feseable technically possible at the time of its design.
It’s like the ‘debate’ around the 30/35 f1 where Fuji finally went to the 50 f1 for many reasons (still would wish for 30/35 F1 when techs improvement will permit it): too bulky, too heavy too slow focus (well a LM motor would have definitely add bulkinesd even more weight!), even not enough open!
Common too, one need to accept certain technical compromises for better field handling that getting the pure / ideal spec sheet! Optics is physics!
So as I’m more than very happy to have what I have with the current RF.
And just love all the dials layout and customisation possible with them. Especially the physical digital zoom lever and aspect ratio ones. It’s a so tactile feeling to handle the GFX100RF.
My only regrets ate the back buttons layout more in line with GFX series of course but which is a pain and ever confusing when going back and forth to a X camera. I simply every time hitting by habit the wrong buttons when starting using the RF! Just annoying when in rush. And damn the focus lever joystick is so stiff to move on my copy! It can hurts after long time usage (especially on image review, and using the very cool on-board editing functionnaliters). Well at least the built quality cannot be blame! It’s a GFX for sure!
It will get looser a bit with usage (I hope).
You cannot have all with this first iteration. Version II, if ever it comes (I’m sure it will), will bring much new features and improvements, like the X100 get overtime.
And I remember when Fuji said they could not reduced that much their IBIS system, and no way to get it on smaller bodies. Now after waiting a bit, we got it on the X100VI, X-E5, X-T50.
Could the RF be better? Yes for sure in certain aspects and specs. Be like a Leica Q? Or BF ? Certainly not for me?
I like it like it is and for what it is and bring.
Hence and overall including price wise (it is not a cheap camera, but the cheapest for digital medium format and all the tech it brings for that format, congrats Fuji for that) the RF is a big winner, and a game changer for me.
Like discussed with Jonas when we were at Copenhagen.
And at last my first digital medium format camera that I can use like my X cameras and not be tired or in pain after a long walking day of use. Such a very big difference!
So Ritchie enjoy your RF! And looking forward the projects you will do with it.
Looking also for nice recipes you’ll great for it (*) 😉
(*) And tell us if you’ll try again on your RF this time the FRGMT B&W recipe.
The GFX100RF that was loaned to me was the black version. It is very nice. I do like the silver more personally, but that’s the great thing: we get to choose which one fits out tastes the best.
I have a constant problem of hitting the wrong button on the back, I have found that I need to look before pressing, unlike my other cameras. Hopefully it will become more natural with time.
Also, FRGMT B&W is set to C6 right now.
I appreciate your kind and thoughtful comments!
Congratulations Ritchie!
I am sure, you are and will be happy with the RF. Imteresting, the color choices. I wanted and got a black one, and am happy with it. Other than that Horus said it all.
👍 Thx @Joerg (and sorry fpr some typos left over 😉)
I appreciate it!
Glad you have got this brilliant camera, Ritchie – terrific shots already showcased with your loaner GFX100RF. I absolutely love mine despite really being more of a 24 & 35mm lensman in 35mm terms than ‘inbetweener’ 28mm (35 on the GFX) but that’s a minor challenge to acclimatize to and the taller native format makes an interesting change. I love the VF: so clear for crops etc that I no longer mind the lack of an OVF. Lack of IBIS and of a fast lens are a non-issue to me as MF never did have fast lenses (I think?) and I love the portability.
For me there is only ONE niggle, the on/off switch is very easily nudged back on when stowing the camera in a suitably compact bag. Occasionally also I have switched the camera off when trying to change the focal length in a hurry with the digital TC rocker, but that’s just down to needing more ‘driving lessons’.
Looking forward to seeing more shots soon!
I concur with you @Thomas H.
The EVF is indeed gorgeous on the RF. Can do all with it as you stated. No need for an EVF, which would have added more complexity, bulk and price.
And I might be devisive on this one, but after 10 years with X100 (and X-Pro), I’m using now very rarely their OVF facilities.
As using A LOT film simulations, recipes and doing SOOC jpegs, I’m using EVF extensively. Get the habit from the X-T (1 digit series), which at the time of the X-T1 was nearly on par (ratio, magnification, clarity, etc) with the Nikon F3 HP or F6. Very strong argument to migrate to Fuji I needed through some time to adjust from OVF to EVF only.
But now I would not turn back.
You can see on the EVF exactly what you’ll get, which improved significantly my workflow and scene sensibility. Huge progress as it is instantaneous.
So I would mind much if the EVF, while a super tech from Fuji compared to Leica, would disappear on the X100VII. I would prefer a larger battery instead. On the X-E5 the EVF is of course tiny, but useable.
And I can understand some saying with the build and design quality (except no WR and double SD slot), that the X-E5 is more than a solid alternative to the X-Pro.
So yeah, the EVF on the GFX100RF, is great and all what I need / want.
While I have the complaint on the joystick, I do not have much the issue On/Off switch on the RF. On the contrary I find the On/Off a bit too stiff and getting a weird feeling on the X-E5. A very different sensation than on a X100 series, X-Pro or X-T5. Which I do not like much (but it’s a detailed compared to what the X-E5 brings).
You’ll make me test again 😉
Might be batch difference 🤔
On EVF ground, as the RF and X-E5 share +- the same firmware DNA (aka time of production of it), I would love the feature of the red and minimalist EVF display you can activate on the X-E5, be pushed at least on RF (would be great to have it on all, but that might be too much to ask). With the viewfinder ‘space’ you have in the RF, that would extra great to have the option.
I hope Fuji will think about and not consider like the advanced filters a gimmick on the GFX, as both are not.
The classic EVF display option of the X-E5 would be a really cool firmware update for the GFX100RF.
Not that one would be in the budget, but I do think a 30mm (24 equiv) would have been more interesting at f/4. You could still be shooting FF28mm with more pixels than a Q3, but it goes ever wider.
I’ve really figured out that I just don’t thrive on 28mm. 35mm is wide, but just tight enough you can edit a scene with it. 24mm is where things start to get dramatic. I find 28 to be awkwardly wide, but not yet getting enough drama. Swapped my 18/2 for a 16/2.8, and loving it.
28mm FF equivalent isn’t my favorite, I’d prefer 35mm or even closer to 50mm personally. I know that a lot of people would like wider. It would be cool if Fujifilm offered a few different focal-length versions like Sigma did with the DP cameras.
I haven’t encountered the on/off problem yet (although I’m sure I will), but the digital teleconverter switch is one that I have accidentally bumped a number of times.
Fuji X takes great 65×24 photos, no data is lost as all you do is lop of the top and bottom. Fuji’s medium format is only good if you print really wide and love to stand 6” away from your print. When you display a full width MF on a 4K display you need to throw away 83% of pixels, that’s moronic paying so much to just throw away the data
Completely right about pixels. The core issue is composition, however. I’d make a go of it with my 26mp, if I could get black bars at the top and bottom of the viewfinder. It couldn’t print that big, but I’d cope. 40mp wouldn’t be an issue at all.
But only if you can *SEE* the TX-1/XPan crop while composing. You just look for shots in a different way when you can crop to a pano like this, or to a 1:1 square, or when shooting vertical with an Pentax 17 or presumably an Xhalf. It makes a huge difference to the shots and compositions to be able to actually see things in real time, instead of just cropping in post.
That’s my biggest bugbear in cameras. It’d be trivial for any digital camera to have XPan crop. (Perhaps even trivial to have an arbitrary, user-defined aspect ratio.) Fuji GFX and Panasonic FF are pretty much the only two who actually do 65:24 built in. And Sigma… but Sigma cameras are weird…
It’s a no-brainer and would be really simple for Fujifilm to add the XPan ratio to the X-series. It’s crazy that they haven’t done so.
Fujifilm printed six of my photos at the size of 2’x3′ for Fujikina Copenhagen: four captured with 40mp X-series cameras and two captured with 100mp GFX. At that size, you couldn’t tell just by looking which were X-series and which were GFX. That’s an amazing testament to the 40mp cameras! Essentially, an XPan image printed 1’x3′ from the 40mp cameras would look no different than from 100mp GFX. Even at 6″ away, they look essentially the same (and amazingly good). My plan is to make 2’x6′ XPan prints, and at that size there will definitely be a noticeable difference between the X and GFX images. The GFX should still look crisp and detailed (like the X-series does at 3′ wide); however, prints from the 40mp camera will be soft, and will only look good when viewed from a few feet back where the fine details are more difficult to notice. That’s not necessarily a bad thing (it’s a pretty normal issue), but it does mean that I would have to be more careful with the placement of the prints (hang them higher, behind large furniture, etc.). That’s the difference. But my intended use-case is probably a bit unusual, and not likely to be applicable to most. The majority of people aren’t making six-foot-wide prints, and if you’re “only” making prints three-feet-wide (which are large prints), the 40mp files are fantastic.
As far as the experience of creating the photos, that’s night and day. Since you cannot do XPan in-camera on the X-series, you have to crop after-the-fact, which is kind of a pain (an added step for me), but also in-the-field you’re just guessing when composing. You cannot see it in the viewfinder. That’s a major downside. Fujifilm could easily fix it with a firmware update, though, and I hope they do. So in this aspect, GFX is vastly superior, but it’s something that Fujifilm could (and should) bring to the X-series without much trouble.
The GFX 100RF is the only current camera on the market I’d be interested in testing. Even better if it were a 50R successor, where we could use some manual lenses as well. How great would that be? If Fujifilm would consider bringing a 100R, I’d be seriously tempted.
Well @Robert, you’ll be like Ritchie very pleased on testing it 😃
With the RF being there which was kind of surprise as current flagships both in X & GFX series are only PSAM (well what need the pros & newcomers), and based on the low success of the 50R (you can find now quite a few second hand), a 100R is daughtful. But like the succes of the X-E5 & RF, you never now.
But we can definitely see the X-Pro which was the flagship for while, pro-tagged, is now very niche and keep only the name.
We are also waiting for a X80 (pocketable) as 1″ sensor rebirth with the X Half and more so younger generation asking for compact (the second hand market is ticketing, and brands beginning to put them back with sometimes less features), so maybe, maybe Fuji will consider back doing a 100R or even a 180R ? I really hope so. Like the long desired X-Pan. But here Fuji like for a pure B&X camera (‘you’ll have our B&W films summations and Accros is good enough’, which kindy true but if you go Infrared you’ll know that having the real ‘conversion’ is truly different and bring way way more), Fuji will tell us ‘well You’ve a 100MPixel sensor (or 180) and you can crop thx to our aspect ratio facilities and you can plan yourself with the on-board help (kinda true, but again the real thing and you pay a bunch for the sensor).
So on those 4 cameras X80, B&W only, X-Pan and 100/180R, I hope Fuji will consider to produce them. A new R would definitely be more than nice to have. I’ll do and will keep my RF though. Simply hope that with IBIS and current / future tech à R will be definitely less big & heavy (brick feeling) than a the 50R. Using also NP-W235 or new one instead of NP-T125 will be a great update too !
(Apologies for some terms, weirdiness that are popping up as my virtual smartphone keyboard and voice recognition played me tricks again. And it is on really visible for me after publication for long posts + we cannot update/edit them, which is not helping).
It’s been frustrating to me for a few years now that Fujifilm’s top-of-the-line flagship offerings have been PASM models, and not traditional tactile models. I understand that they’re trying to attract Canikony users, and it’s one way to increase market share. I also don’t have a problem with Fujifilm offering options—divergent designs for different people. That’s actually quite smart. But there should definitely be a flagship-level model (both in X-series and GFX) that has the traditional tactile controls. It’s kind of a slap-in-the-face to the long-time loyal fanbase who have been in the system a long time and purchased lots of gear and would love the opportunity to own the highest-end cameras but have no interest in a PASM model. For X-series, the next X-Pro (whenever that finally comes) could be satisfactory as a high-end X-H2 alternative, but what about a tactile control alternative to the X-H2s? Perhaps Fujifilm will make an X-T6s as the next best thing?
I’m shocked that there hasn’t been a 50R successor. The only reasonable explanation I’ve heard is that the 50R didn’t sell well, and Fujifilm had to discount it pretty significantly to clear the inventory. In the early days of GFX, I think Fujifilm believed that there would be a lot of crossover between X and GFX; however, most GFX purchases were people new to Fujifilm and not X-series owners. The GFX100RF has been a different story. A larger percentage of those who purchased it also own X-series, and it has been selling very well (for GFX). Hopefully that will help encourage Fujifilm to finally make a 50R successor.
Hi Ritchie, congrats on the GFX! It’s a spectacular camera, and while a medium format system wouldn’t make practical or financial sense for my own shooting (and honestly, I often struggle to see a night-and-day difference in web-sized images anyway), it’s still highly inspiring to see the results you’re getting with it.
I have a question regarding your workflow and file formats with this beast. I remember reading in one of your older posts that you didn’t see much of a practical advantage in the HEIF format and preferred sticking to classic JPEGs for your recipes.
Has that perspective changed at all now that you’re shooting medium format? Specifically, are you tempted to use 10-bit HEIF to fully preserve and render the GFX’s massive dynamic range in high-contrast situations, or does the hassle of HEIF compatibility still outweigh the benefits?
Or, if you’re still strictly team JPEG, do you feel the extra dynamic range of the larger sensor still translates noticeably into the final 8-bit SOOC JPEG compared to your APS-C bodies? Or would you say the GFX’s biggest real-world benefits for your style of photography are more about the insane cropping flexibility and high-ISO performance?
Looking forward to seeing more of your GFX recipes and articles. Keep up the great work!
Thanks! There’s not a night-and-day difference between X and GFX even at large prints. For example, at Fujikina Copenhagen, Fujifilm printed six of my photos at 2’x3′ (actually, a hair larger than that… I’m not sure what the European equivalent of that size is): four were captured with 40mp X-series cameras, and two with 100mp GFX; you really couldn’t tell them apart, the IQ looked the same. GFX has a little better dynamic range and high-ISO capabilities, but that wasn’t something noticeable in these prints. You really need to print much larger for the IQ difference to be impactful, and most people aren’t printing that large.
As far as HEIF vs JPEG, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. Yes, HEIF is 10-bit, but it’s also a *compression* format. In other words, it is a way to save space. Inherently it actually has much less data than a JPEG, using 40%-50% less space on your card—the software or reader adds back an interpretation of the missing data to fill in the blanks (I think it’s kind of like a mosaic where half the squares are missing, but the reader knows how to fill in the missing in-between squares). In theory, it can produce more color depth (four times more brightness levels per channel), but in practical use, it’s unlikely that your screen can display it (outside of some high-end monitors) and—even if it can—you might not notice anyway, while photo prints don’t necessarily work on “bit” format (which is a digital thing and not analog). Where it can make a difference is with editing. The 10-bit depth allows a little more wiggle room for manipulations before artifacts and banding begin to show. Inversely, I think there is a misunderstanding of the JPEG format. JPEGs are plenty good enough for the final photo; while some might use TIFF or another format, by far most people save their edited RAW photos as JPEGs, obviously concluding that the JPEG is plenty good for the finished picture. So think of the JPEG as cementing the finished photo, but even in that, JPEGs have some latitude for manipulation, and can be adjusted to a small degree before they begin to show artifacts. If you aren’t heavily editing your files, there isn’t a real-world benefit (other than storage space). The negative to HEIF is that it disables Clarity on your Fujifilm camera, and (probably more importantly) not all programs can read the file format, which can be super annoying when that happens. So, yes, still team JPEG for me. The pictures look great, even when printed large. Interestingly, HEIF is actually a video format that uses H.265, that’s how Apple has Live View and such on an iPhone (maybe Fujifilm will bring something similar to their cameras?).
Thanks for the detailed reply, Ritchie! I completely agree with your practical conclusion – the fact that Fujifilm disables the Clarity setting when shooting HEIF is definitely the biggest bottleneck, and JPEG remains the undisputed king of compatibility for now.
Just a small technical clarification on how HEIF works under the hood, though: It actually doesn’t contain *less* data than a JPEG. It’s exactly the opposite. HEIF uses the H.265 codec, which is simply a vastly superior and more modern compression algorithm compared to the 1992 JPEG standard.
While JPEG is physically limited to 8-bit, HEIF holds 10-bit data. This means HEIF packs four times the color depth and tonal information into a file that is 50% smaller, purely because the math behind the compression is much smarter, not because it throws more data away.
We’re splitting hairs, but HEIF files inherently hold way less data than JPEG files. For practical purposes it doesn’t matter, but technically, there are much fewer numbers stored in a HEIF. It’s a part of the compression. One way to think about it is a vacuum sealed bag with a pillow in it. The pillow represents the image. The vacuum bag represents HEIF. Suck all the air out of the bag, and the pillow is much smaller. Open the bag up and the air returns, and you have a usable pillow again. In the in-between, the pillow isn’t usable.
That analogy is an over-simplification. HEIF is actually quite sophisticated, but one way that it works is finding patters, and only storing data on one location of the pattern and essentially copy-and-pasting to the other locations with identical patterns. For example, if six pixels in one spot are the same as six in another location, it will only record the numbers for one set of pixels and the reading software will replace the missing ones with the others. Any section of a picture that can be copy-and-pasted, HEIF will do it (kind of like clone stamping). It will also look for patterns in strings of numbers, and instead of recording each string, it will remember (for example) that each string in the set increases by one digit left-to-right for eight pixel sites. When it finds those patters, the unnecessary data is deleted, and re-introduced by the HEIF reader.
In practical use, there’s not a difference between a HEIF and JPEG. For example, not all screens can display 10 bit; for those that do, can the human eye even detect the subtlety? Probably not. For example, MPB and Fstoppers both conducted blind tests on this, and found that most people cannot distinguish, it’s just too subtle. However, where the HEIF has an advantage is that it can withstand higher degrees of manipulation before artifacts, banding, etc., appear in the photo. So if you are doing moderate to heavy editing of the file, the HEIF will serve you better than the JPEG. If you are not editing or only lightly editing, the two formats are about equal. If you are trying to save storage space, HEIF is superior. If you want to use Fujifilm’s Clarity setting, JPEG is the answer. If you want a format that can be read universally, also use JPEG; while HEIF can be read by more programs than just a few years ago, it’s still limited.
The idea that “HEIF holds four times more color depth and tonal information into a file that is 50% smaller” while not throwing data away is false. It throws lots and lots and lots of data away (way more than a JPEG does), it just can clone stamp it back in or re-introduce it by recognizing patterns. You can pack down a half-cup measuring cup with as much flour as it will hold, but in the end you still only have a half cup of flour. Same is true for digital files. The compression and decompression system of HEIF is a neat trick and that can be useful, allowing it to seem like you got a cup and a half of flour out of just a half cup.
Oh, I hope you’ll have as much fun as me in the past months. I’m sure you will 😀 RF rules
Thanks! So far it’s been great.
@Ritchie and others using several Fujifilm bodies: I have a open question on energy consumption with the RF & X-E5. Hence why I spoke of firmware DNA as both came along in a row:
Do you experience, like I’m experiencing a visible difference in power consumption usage between the X-T5/X100VI vs X-E5 and GFX100RF vs GFX100S (II)?
Aka while still of same generation (sensor & processor), I can experience the behing the scene tweaks done after time either on hardware and more so firmware from latest batch vs initial first of Gen V (sic !). There are visible (tiny) behavioral changes between the older X-T5 and newest X-5 for exemple.
And the X-E5 behave in many ways very much like the RF. It is sometime amazing.
One main difference I spotted between older Gen V cameras and newest ones: Energy consumption.
On normal / standard / default settings the RF and X-E5 seem to be more punchy (AF wise, overal responsiveness). On my X-T5 to get the juice out of it, I have activated by ‘default’ for my core settings the Boost Mode. It behave way better, while yes the battery is drained of course, but you can go along for an normal medium shooting day with 1 NP-W235 (depending of your usage of course, style of shooting lot or not of images review, and more so if not doing sport, wildlife, etc). The X-T5 improved with same settings over the X-T4 (expected following hardware upgrade too).
Exact same remarks on the X100V & X100VI, with the VI also in Boost Mode (same remarks for the extra battery if needed). I have no issues there at all. Totally expected behaviour, etc.
As I configure my cameras the same ways for core handling settings, I was surprised that when activating the boost mode on the RF (assuming it would grant me more juice in file processing, AF, general responsiveness, like previous same Gen camaras) the hoped improvement were not really there, and more so the batteries were drained in the fasted way possible, giving the feeling of a reversion (like going from a X-T5 back to a X-T4).
And furthermore, when not in use, the battery still continue to be drained more (slower, but still, not keeping up the same conservation time as on previous models).
In fact, now on my RF & X-E5 the boost mode is simply deactivated!
Alone, I would have say much. My copy, etc… But on both X & GFX models, I’m pretty sure some hardware tweaks / overclocking along firmware ones have been made along the way. And this is understandable as overtime progress is made (also counting tweaks in AF, etc).
While surprising, and finding not much real field improvement with the Boost Mode on general usage, I’m in fact pleased on the RF & X-E5 with the the standard energy mode.
But I’m still wondering what are the tweaks being done. Hence wondering too with the future X-T6 and its new battery.
Another ‘weird’ (*) behaviour with the RF & X-E5 Also about SD cards and their speed. (*) all can be explained logically if one found the root cause(s). On my X-T5 I’ve got speedy ones (like 300MB/s read/write – which it can handle), making a difference in Boost Mode and doing sports photography in highest burst mode, doing RAW, etc, where I can have significant writing gain (justifying the investment in such cards !).
Put the exact same in the RF (which it can handle too of course), no real difference with less speedy ones (say 200MB/s) !
Well 100MPixels files are large to write. But… Ok no big deal.
But I’ve got then a display ‘bug’ aka I like to display the image taken for a second either in the EVF or rear display (depending how I review them – default setting since I’m in Fuji – so many many years).
On the RF if I’ve tried to put the same high speed SD cards (the 300MB/s), well the image is not displayed in the EVF has it should, instead it flashes and revertes to the scene.
Same behaviour on the X-E5 which has the hardware, UHS-II Bus Interface, to handle SDXC II cards (not like the X100VI).
On both, I’m forced to adapted my core display settings and use the “stay on” until you press the shutter button. Forcing me to review on the rear display, which I do not like at all (forcing the use reading glasses, while on the EVF I have the dioptric corrections).
If I put slower cards like 200MB/s, then back to normal / expected behaviour! Also linked if Boost Mode is activated or not. Quite weird to say the least. And only present so far on those 2 newest cameras.
Ok not big deal either, compared to all the rest of the advantages you get with both cameras
But still surprising. This behaviour changes were not present in Gen IV and before. Very consistant in fact until you change of gen. Consequence of the AF bug fix? Already testing some new ways / background features / bug fixes incorporated which create unexpected new ones?
I do not have a clue. But they are differences.
I was hopping for a correction in last firmware update on both cameras (you know the none revealed bug fixes), but nothing there.
Do you have the issue too? I’m thinking depending on feedback here to wrote to Fuji about this (but they must know already).
I haven’t paid attention to any of that, so I will have to do so going forward. I don’t think I have any 300MB/s SD cards, my fastest is 250. I’ll play around and see what I notice.
Nice images and glad you got to try the new RF GFX. The fuji Glass is world class. I used to have a super wide fuji 6×9 film rangefinder camera with a fixed lens, and it was just as sharp and contrasty as my Hasselblad’s and Zeiss lenses!
I was so excited to see a new RF camera come out, but so disappointed to see a fixed 28mm equivalent lens. (perhaps a 35mm equivalent might have been a better choice for a fixed lens).
I’m an industrial corporate photographer and dumped all my Nikon Pro equipment for the XPro1 and 10-24mm lens for my interior and industrial work. The Fuji Glass is world class, and XPro1 reminded me of shooting with my old Leica M-6. the images I get from my new XE-5 and XT-5 are excellent. But I bought the GFX50sll because I was used to shooting medium and large format, and the GFX50sll delivered. But I have to say the XT-5 and XE-5 held their own agents the GFX while shooting in RR repair shop facility. As much as I love my GFX50sll, I have always wished that Fuji had a more compact RF styled body. The New RF lens is not my favorite focal length, as I shoot super wide (8mm, 14mm or my 10-24mm on my XT-5) or 23mm and my 32-64mm on my GFX50sll) the 28mm equivalent on the new GFX100RF, to me is a compromise. It’s not wide enough to give me a dynamic feel when shooting close and should have been at least equal to a 24mm which is also a compromise (for me). Had it come with a 20mm equivalent, I might have purchased it as I shoot mostly wide. But for me, who has some wonderful GFX lenses, I need an interchangeable lens camera and must have a 3 way tilt screen as I often shoot very low and vertical. As I get older, bending is not an option a GFX full square sensor would be nice so I wouldn’t have to turn the camera (like my old Hasselblad’s). and a large square sensor would be more expensive and most of the younger photographers would not feel comfortable with square, until they got used to it like I did the first time I shot Hasselblads. I hated square and didn’t grasp why so many hi end commercial shooters embraced square. But once I did It made sense as the lenses covered the entire frame
I hope Fuji considers a compact GFX RF body for the ones who have thousands of dollars invested in lenses and just needs a new smaller, light weight camera body.
If Fujifilm made a GFX 50R successor (and perhaps as compact as possible), I bet that would be great for you. I hope they do!
Thanks for the input, it’s appreciated.
You bought my dream camera! Congrats and enjoy it 🙂 I loved my time with the gfx 50R, but all the weight and cost of lenses was too much at a point. I don’t own a good enough computer to edit the raw files from the 100RF and while I mostly shoot in jpegs with Fuji, I feel that these files deserve more if that makes sense. I think their lens choice is perfect and makes most sense. It is wide enough and it makes ample room for cropping and this camera is a cropping beast. It is insane what you get out of it! With the 50R I mostly shot with lenses with a max aperture of f/4 anyway. Iso6400 is no problem for these cameras.
I don’t naturally appreciate the 28mm focal length personally (although I have used it a ton), but it seems sufficiently fitting for the GFX100RF for some reason. Maybe it is because there is so much room for cropping, I’m not certain.
Great shots!
The GFX100RF looks to be a great camera, but maybe not for me. But I suspect the Mark II will be undeniable. Give me some sort of stabilization, F/2, and a 3-way tilting screen and I’m in. And a 40mm-43mm full frame equivalent would be ideal.
Seeing your shots makes me want to overlook what this camera is not. And I’ve been thirsting for a medium format camera. I recently purchased the X100VI for my lady (I’m a Sony shooter) and caught the Fujifilm bug. The GFX100RF is the most appealing.
A three-way tilt would be nice. I also would prefer something a little closer to a 35mm-50mm full-frame-equivalent focal-length.
Unless/until Fujifilm can significantly shrink IBIS, I don’t think a v2 will get it—they said that IBIS alone would nearly double the size of some aspect of the camera, making it much larger. Generally speaking, f/2 is not really necessary for medium format; f/4 is equivalent (as far as depth-of-field) to f/2 on X-series.
In my opinion, and I’ve said this a couple of times, that Fujifilm should make a more premium fixed-lens GFX camera with a larger maximum aperture and IBIS. It will likely be roughly 50% bulkier/heavier and cost two or three grand more. Then people can decide if they want the cheaper/smaller GFX100RF or the costlier/larger version. Sort of the difference between the X70 and the X100T.