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