GFX | FUJI X WEEKLY

New: Fujifilm GFX100RF — First Ever Fixed-Lens GFX

Fujifilm just announced this morning the brand-new GFX100RF, the first ever fixed-lens compact digital medium-format camera. This new camera uses the same 100mp sensor found in the GFX100 II and GFX100S II, and has a built-in 35mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent, or 18mm APS-C-equivalent) f/4 lens. All for only $4,899! There are several things that make this new camera special—plus a couple that don’t—so let’s dive right in.

The Fujifilm GFX100RF is the most portable digital medium-format camera ever made. It’s the most lightweight digital medium-format camera/lens combination, and it’s the smallest GFX. It’s probably the smallest medium-format, but it depends on how exactly you define smallest. The Hasselblad 907X (plus CFV 100C back) with the 28mm f/4 lens was previously considered the smallest and lightest, and while it might arguably be the “smallest” (it is less wide, but deeper), it is no longer the lightest. For portability, the GFX100RF is the best option in medium-format, making it a compelling camera for travel or even everyday carry.

A few months ago I purchased my first GFX camera, the GFX100S II, with the specific purpose of creating XPan panoramic images that I want to print large. One problem with GFX in general is the size and heft of the gear, which do not lend themselves well for lugging all over the place. Of course, Ansel Adams and the great photographers of the past would laugh at that. While I much prefer smaller gear for travel, I “need” to bring my GFX100S II for the XPan pictures. The 40mp sensor in my X-series cameras produces plenty of resolution for the XPan crop, but it is not quite enough for how large I hope to print. The GFX100RF would be perfect for this, except that I just dropped a ton of money on a GFX camera and a couple lenses back in December.

Which brings me to point number two: the GFX100RF is the cheapest way to get into digital medium-format photography, aside from buying used. If you’ve wanted to get into digital medium-format but have been priced out, this new camera might be for you. It wasn’t even a decade ago that it would cost you at least $10,000 for just the camera body, and thousands more for a lens. Now the entry fee is only $5,000, and that includes the lens! Most people, though, don’t need so much resolution, and medium-format is far more of a luxury than a need.

Another unfortunate aspect of the GFX system is the lack of retro-styled cameras with the traditional tactile controls that Fujifilm is known for. This not only makes the cameras stylish, but also fun, and (IMHO) more functional. The long-discontinued GFX50R is the only other option, so this type of design is long-overdue. Thankfully, Fujifilm is bringing it back to GFX! I bet if this camera does well, there will be more retro-styled models in the future—perhaps a GFX100R.

The GFX100RF has a couple of unique features. One is an aspect ratio knob, which also includes a couple of new aspect ratios not typical found on Fujifilm cameras. Now you can choose between 4:3, 5:4, 1:1, 3:2, 7:6, 65:24, 17:6, and 16:9, and you can switch between those without digging through the menu. Another is a digital teleconverter, with a wheel that shuffles through the options: 45mm, 63mm, and 80mm (I’m not sure if those crops are GFX focal-length measurements or full-frame). Also, interestingly, the GFX100RF uses the same 49mm filter thread size as the X100-series. I can’t say this with 100% confidence, but I’m pretty sure the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 will work on the new camera (this is mere speculation), which is absolutely amazing if they do; however, I doubt that they are officially supported, and they may not cover the entire frame. Oh, and the GFX100RF is the first GFX model with a leaf shutter, which is especially useful for high speed flash sync.

Now onto a couple of negatives. I’ve covered these before (here and here), so I’ll try to make this quick. I think the camera will be well-received and well-loved, and these two issues will prove to be relatively minor in the long run.

First is the lack of IBIS. An expensive camera lacking IBIS in 2025 is a shocker for some. There are photographers who consider it an essential feature, and won’t buy a camera without it. I’m not in that camp personally. This isn’t a video-centric model, and it has a wide-angle lens, so it doesn’t really need IBIS. Sure, it would be nice to have, but it would have made the camera larger, heavier, and more expensive (at least a little). Two of the biggest selling points (portability and price) would have taken a bit of a hit. I’m sure Fujifilm debated extensively internally if it should have it or not, and ultimately they chose to exclude IBIS for the reasons I just stated. I would have been happy with or without stabilization, as it’s just not a big deal on a camera like this; however, those who do believe it is an essentially feature will likely pass.

Second is the maximum aperture of only f/4, which is not particularly impressive. While f/4 is common on medium-format, it’s not especially bright, which will make the camera less practical after the sun goes down or in dimly lit indoor situations. Generally speaking, shallow depth-of-field isn’t a major focus of wide-angle lens photography, but for those wondering, f/4 on GFX has a similar depth-of-field as f/2 on the X-series. The GFX100RF is more of an “f/8 and be there” camera, so I don’t think the small maximum aperture will be a problem for most people and situations.

That’s my analysis of the new camera. I think many will order it for its portability, price, and style. It’s not a camera that most people need, but I bet it will be highly desired. I want one! I kind of wish I had waited to jump into GFX, because if I hadn’t purchased a GFX100S II a few months ago I would have ordered the GFX100RF today. Instead, I will have to save up and wait. Oh, well. Whenever the opportunity comes to buy the camera, I’m certain that I will be thrilled with it. I’m sure those who have already preordered the camera will love it when it arrives next month.

You can preorder the Fujifilm GFX100RF today. I’ve heard there has already been a lot of preorders, so don’t be surprised if there is a bit of a wait before your order ships. The camera will officially be released and ship on April 24th.

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
Fujifilm GFX100RF in silver:
Amazon, B&H

WCL-X100 & TCL-X100 for GFX??!!

Posted on March 5 by Ritchie Roesch

I said something in my Is $5,000 A Bargain or Bust? article that caught a couple people’s attention. In regards to the upcoming fixed-lens GFX camera, I stated, “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.” I received two messages from people wanting to further discuss the idea that the wide and telephoto conversion lenses for X100-series cameras might be compatible with the upcoming medium-format model.

Just to be clear from the top, I’m highly skeptical that the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 will be officially compatible with the GFX100RF. It’s possible that they might be, but that seems like improbable engineering. I don’t think Fujifilm designed the lens on the new camera to be compatible with those two conversion lenses. More likely—if there are conversion lenses—new ones will be designed specifically for the GFX camera. But…

Above: Surprisingly, the world’s smallest lens covers the APS-C sensor.

There’s a strong likelihood that you could actually use those two conversion lenses if you want to. Now, the camera is unlikely to account for and fix the distortion (unless the engineers programmed it to). There’s a good chance that the conversion lenses won’t cover the whole frame, or—if it does—there could be strong vignetting and soft corners. But maybe it won’t be as bad as you might think. For example, Pentax Auto-110 lenses, which are tiny, cover the APS-C sensor. The Helios 44-2 lens, which is for 35mm cameras, fully covers the GFX sensor. So there is a possibility that the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 conversion lenses will cover most or maybe even all of the GFX sensor.

If they don’t, that may not be a big deal. Using a different aspect ratio will likely crop out whatever isn’t covered. If the conversion lenses cover almost all of frame, then the 3:2 ratio might be all you need. If the coverage isn’t quite that good, 16:9, 65:24, and 1:1 should do the trick. Or, with 100mp to work with, a simple crop should do—I could see using the teleconverter lens in conjunction with the in-camera digital teleconverter, which would crop out whatever isn’t covered.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II & Helios 44-2 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm Recipe*

The real question is if the adapter ring on the GFX100RF will be the same size as the X100-series. My guess is no. Most likely it will be larger on the GFX—I think that’s a pretty safe assumption. In the unlikely case that it is the same size, you’d be able to just screw on the conversion lenses just like you would on the X100VI. Much more likely, you would need a step-down ring to attach the conversion lenses. This would have (at least) two side effects: less coverage of the sensor, and more close-focusing capabilities—maybe even macro—like using an extension tube.

My hope is that Fujifilm releases conversion lenses for the upcoming GFX100RF. If they don’t, or if they do but they’re unaffordable or difficult to find in stock, then adapting the WCL-X100 and TCL-X100 should be possible; however, it may not be ideal. There will certainly be some vignetting and soft corners, and they probably will not cover 100% of the GFX sensor, among other potential issues. But, technically speaking, it should work. If I do purchase the upcoming camera at some point in the future, I’ll be sure to test it out and report back to you what I discover.

Is $5,000 a Bargain or Bust?

Posted on February 26 by Ritchie Roesch

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.

*Balloons* – Goodyear, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

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.

*Oak Creek* – Sedona, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Nostalgia Negative

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.”

*Fire, Truck* – Lordburg, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f/1.7 – 1970’s Summer

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.

*Yellow Brush, Pink Sand* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f1.7 – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired

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

Film Simulation Recipes for Fujifilm GFX Cameras

Posted on January 23 by Ritchie Roesch

One of the first things that I hoped to accomplish after buying a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera last month is to understand how compatible X-series Film Simulation Recipes are with GFX, and what adjustments should be made, if any. I had anticipated this being a fairly easy task, and in a sense it was, but I really struggled with this project.

Fujifilm has made a number of GFX models since February of 2017: GFX50S, GFX50R, GFX100, GFX100S, GFX50S II, GFX100 II, and GFX100S II. There are a few different sensors and processors, and the cameras can be separated into different generations. The GFX50S, GFX50R and GFX50S II share the same sensor, but the GFX50S II falls into a different generation than the original two. The GFX100 and GFX100S share the same sensor, but are different generations. The GFX100 II and GFX100S II share the same sensor, but not the same sensor as the first two 100mp GFX models. It’s a bit of a puzzle. The only GFX camera that I own is the GFX100S II, and I briefly had the opportunity to borrow a GFX50S four years ago. My GFX experience is very limited at this point.

One issue that I found when comparing Recipes captured on X-Trans vs GFX is that the lenses are not the same. Different lenses can produce slightly different results depending on the micro-contrast and coatings. While not a big deal, it would have been preferable to have used the same lens across all the tests; however, even if I could, the focal length wouldn’t be the same. For example, when I adapt my vintage Helios 44-2 lens, the focal length on X-Trans is 87mm while it is 46mm on GFX; aside from that, the Helios is noticeably softer on the GFX. So the comparisons I made were never fully 1:1, unfortunately.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II & Helios 44-2 – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm*

I did make a number of comparisons between the photos captured with the GFX100S II and those made on an X-T5 and X-E4, utilizing the same Recipes. The main difference between X-Trans IV and X-Trans V rendering is that blue is a little deeper on X-Trans V with the Classic Chrome, Classic Negative, Eterna, and Eterna Bleach Bypass film simulations—there are some other minor differences, but the blue rendering is the main one. On the GFX100S II, blue behaves more like X-Trans V. The overall rendering is very similar to X-Trans V, but not 100% identical. For example, Grain is scaled differently on GFX. There are several insignificant differences that I noticed upon close side-by-side comparisons, but without carefully studying deep crops, the GFX images look pretty identical to the X-Trans V photos. Except they also don’t.

This is the paradox I discovered: the pictures look so similar when comparing colors, tints, shadows, etc., etc., but there is something that’s clearly different. But what? I couldn’t put my finger on it.

I asked a few people I know who have a GFX camera, and one suggested color fidelity, that the same exact colors just seem more alive (or maybe more lifelike) on GFX. My wife, Amanda, suggested that it’s depth, that it feels like you can step into the GFX photos, while the X-series photos seem a little flat in comparison. This could simply be the depth-of-field or the micro-contrast of the GFX lenses (or both). As I thought about it, I was reminded of the Sigma DP2 Merrill camera I used to own that similarly had a (so-called) “3D pop” to the pictures. High-ISO digital noise looks different on GFX, with splotchy colors that are typical from a Bayer sensor (and not the more film-grain-like noise from X-Trans); however, it’s not particularly obvious, buried in all that resolution. It’s probably a combination of all of those things and more that make the nearly identical colors and contrast appear different in a way that is difficult to describe, but it’s all so subtle that it’s easy to miss and dismiss, so perhaps it doesn’t matter.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II & 80mm f/1.7 – Kodachrome 64*

With that information, I made a decision regarding Film Simulation Recipes in the Fuji X Weekly App. I added the GFX100 II and GFX100S II as compatible cameras to all X-Trans V Recipes, as well as X-Trans IV Recipes (excluding those for the X-T3/X-T30) that don’t use Classic Chrome, Classic Negative, Eterna or Eterna Bleach Bypass (the same Recipes as the X-T5, for example). Use those Recipes on the GFX100 II and GFX100S II, as they look great. I updated the App yesterday to show those Recipes as compatible with those two cameras. For the other (non-X-T3/X-T30) X-Trans IV Recipes, dropping Color Chrome FX Blue down one spot (Weak instead of Strong, Off instead of Weak) also makes them compatible.

After that, I thought about the other GFX models. Shouldn’t they be in the App, too? Why should they be left out? I don’t own any of those other GFX models, so I dug through the manuals—plus did several Google searches—to try to piece together how they should be categorized in the Fuji X Weekly App. That took a few verified and unverified assumptions. Also, I realized an assumption I made several years back was incorrect.

I categorized GFX100S the same as the newer X-Trans IV cameras; Recipes that are compatible with (for example) the X-T4 are also compatible with the GFX100S. I categorized the GFX100 the same as the X-T3 and X-T30.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f/1.7 – 1970’s Summer*

The 50mp GFX cameras are a bit of a problem because shadows are rendered slightly lighter, and a .5 Shadow increase is necessary for those models (the GFX50S and GFX50R don’t have .5 Highlight and Shadow adjustments). A few years ago when I had the GFX50S for a few weeks, I created three Recipes for 50mp GFX. I made an assumption that those Recipes would also be compatible with the GFX100, but I believe that camera has deeper shadow rendering like the other 100mp cameras, so that assumption was incorrect; however, I left it alone in the App. If not for the shadow rendering, X-T3/X-T30 Recipes would be compatible with the GFX50S and GFX50R—you can still use those Recipes, just know that it will look slightly different (try them anyway, you might like the results). The one camera that was left out of the App is the GFX50S II. You can use X-Trans IV Recipes the same as the GFX100S; however, a .5 Shadow adjustment should be made. If a Recipe calls for -1 Shadow, use -0.5 instead, and if a Recipe calls for +2 Shadow, use +2.5 instead.

This isn’t a perfect categorization of the GFX models, but I think it’s good. If I made a mistake in this, please let me know—like I said, my GFX experience is quite limited. For those with GFX cameras, I hope this provides a little clarity as to which Recipes to use. I’m sure that having these cameras in the App will be helpful to some photographers with GFX models, so if you have a GFX camera, open up the Fuji X Weekly App and take a look.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + 80mm f/1.7 – Kodak Gold Max 400 Expired*

Find Film Simulation Recipes for your Fujifilm cameras in the Fuji X Weekly App! Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.

10 Frames in New Mexico — Fujifilm GFX100S II XPan Photographs

Posted on December 30, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

*Sand & Sky* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

The main reason why I purchased a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera a couple of weeks ago was for XPan photography. For those who don’t know, XPan cameras were a joint venture between Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the late-1990’s through the mid-2000’s, right at the pinnacle of film. XPan models were interchangeable-lens rangefinder cameras that used approximately two frames of 35mm film to capture panoramic pictures in a 65:24 aspect ratio.

You can crop images from any model to the XPan ratio without much trouble, but composing it in-camera is different than doing it after-the-fact because you can better visualize the outcome. Also, I prefer straight-out-of-camera photography over sitting at a computer editing, but that’s just me. All GFX models, including the GFX100S II, have the 65:24 aspect ratio built-in; however, X-series cameras do not (in my opinion, Fujifilm should add the XPan ratio to all of their 40mp cameras via a firmware update). If you are serious about XPan photography and you use Fujifilm cameras, GFX is the preferable route.

*Sand Wall* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

Since the 65:24 aspect ratio cuts out about half of the resolution, having a high-megapixel sensor is important. With that said, you can’t truly appreciate XPan when viewing on a computer or your phone. XPan from a GFX100S II isn’t going to look any more impressive than (for example) an XPan crop from a Fujifilm X-T10. These pictures need to be printed to be appreciated, and that’s my goal. I plan to print a couple of these to see what they look like, and if I create any in the future that are worthy, I hope to make some really large prints that are two-feet tall by five-feet-five-inches wide. For that, the 100mp sensor of the GFX100S II is essential.

All of these photographs, which were captured yesterday and the day before in New Mexico, were made using a Fujifilm GFX100S II camera with a Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens. These pictures are camera-made JPEGs using a few different Film Simulation Recipes. Over the coming days and weeks I’ll be testing various Recipes to see what works best on GFX, and I’ll be sure to share the results with you, so stay tuned! In the meantime, I hope that you enjoy these 10 XPan images.

*Cars* – Tularosa, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor 100 Gold

*House Fire* – Lordsburg, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – 1970’s Summer

*Yucca in the Sand* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

*Yucca and Grass*– White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

*Sandscape* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

*Dune Brush* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

*Sunset Behind Brush* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

*Sand at Sunset* – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Velvia Film

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

My new Fujifilm camera is…

Posted on December 17, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

My latest camera purchased arrived in the mail a few days ago: a Fujifilm GFX100S II. Along with the camera I also got a couple of lenses to go with it: Fujinon GF 80mm f/1.7 and GF 30mm f/3.5. This was, by far, the most money that I’ve ever spent on gear, and it was with some apprehensiveness that I clicked the Proceed with Purchase button. Let me explain why I bought it.

My first GFX experience was with the GFX 50S, which I was able to borrow for a couple of weeks in early 2021. It was a dream-come-true to try, but I was not convinced that it was something I wanted to own. Not only was it pretty far outside of my budget, but it was big, heavy, and slow, and didn’t provide any major advantages to my photography over the X-series. If I was given one I wouldn’t say no, but I wasn’t about to shell out many thousands of dollars for it.

The next GFX experience came earlier this year when Fujifilm invited me to a retreat in the Catskill Mountains of New York. Some photographers, including myself, were loaned preproduction Fujifilm X-T50‘s to try out, and some were loaned preproduction GFX100S II’s. While I didn’t get a chance to use one myself, I did get to see the amazing images that other photographers created with it, including Bryan Minear. I’ll never forget when Bryan and I got completely drenched on an early-morning photo outing in the rain.

A few days later Fujifilm had a rooftop launch party for the GFX100S II and X-T50 in New York City (above Foto Care), and myself and Bryan were enlisted to help. We were placed together at a touch-and-try station for the GF 500mm f/5.6 lens. I didn’t know much about the gear, so I wasn’t particularly helpful. I did get to touch-and-try very briefly, though, but not enough to form any sort of opinions of the gear. I met a number of interesting and talented people, and had an amazing time, so I’m extremely grateful and honored for the opportunity.

Most recently, when Bryan and I cohosted a photowalk in Ann Arbor last month, he let me try out his GFX100S II camera with the Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 lens attached. It was a beast, but also produced amazing images. It was that experience that pushed me over the edge to want one. Prior to this, I would have said that there’s no way I’m buying one, I can’t afford it. Instead, I began looking at what it would take to buy one. I had already began saving for the next camera purchase, so I was already partway along the path, but, you know, GFX is quite expensive.

It might seem like I just suddenly wanted one, like I was smitten with G.A.S., which is partially true. Actually, I’ve been thinking about it for some time now. Specifically, I have had an interest in creating 65:24 XPan panoramas, and the GFX cameras are especially excellent for that. I also want to explore square photographs, and GFX is quite good for that, too. My hope is to make large prints of these images, if I should capture any worthy of being printed.

Above: Me, as photographed by Bryan Minear using a Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 with the XPan aspect ratio, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

There’s also the benefit of figuring out which Film Simulation Recipes work best with the camera, and what modifications, if any, need to be considered. I haven’t made much headway with that just yet, but hopefully over the coming weeks I can publish some findings. I’ve had a number of requests for GFX Recipes, but, without any GFX gear, that’s tough to do. I should be able to make some big strides regarding this now that I have a GFX100S II in my hands.

I’m not a big fan of the heft, or the non-tactile controls, but the images are incredible! However, for everyday use, there’s no way that you can tell it’s GFX, and not X-series. In fact, I published a few pictures on Fuji X Weekly that were captured with the GFX100S II, and nobody noticed. You have to crop deeply and/or print very large to really appreciate it, I think. Those who truly “need” GFX are a small group, and I’m not one of them …yet, anyway. I’m making plans where I hope the GFX100S II proves to be a necessity for what I’m creating, so we’ll see if it does.

Above: Vultures circling a desert ridge; photo by Ritchie Roesch with a Fujifilm GFX100S II & Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 with the XPan aspect ratio and Kodachrome 64 Film Simulation Recipe.

I had to sell a couple of items to afford the camera (and to make room on the shelf for it). Even then, it was a stretch to pay for it. I had some trepidation when I ordered it, but I think it might eventually be worthwhile. Now I’ve just got to get it to the places I want to take it to—mostly, National Parks—in order to create the images that I imagine capturing with it.

I’ll try not to bombard you with GFX articles. I plan to keep this website primarily focused on X-series gear, and only sprinkled with with GFX content. But I can’t guarantee that. I might end up absolutely loving the camera, and speaking more about it than I initially intend. Or maybe it will mostly collect dust, as I choose smaller, lighter, more fun gear. Time will tell. But, for this first post, I will share with you some of my first pictures captured with the new camera.

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Reggie’s Portra*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Nostalgic Film*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Pacific Blues*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + 1970’s Summer*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Kodachrome 64*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Kodak Gold 200*

*Fujifilm GFX100S II + Fujinon 80mm f/1.7 + Kodak Tri-X 400*

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

Thoughts on the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF

Posted on November 30, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

I’ve had several people ask me what my opinions are of the upcoming Fujifilm GFX100RF fixed-lens X100-like GFX camera, which will supposedly be announced in the first quarter of 2025. Apparently, according to Fujirumors, the camera will be about the size of an X-Pro, have the 100mp GFX sensor, a 35mm (28mm full-frame-equivalent) f/4 lens, and will not have IBIS. That’s all that they’ve reported so far.

I don’t currently own any GFX cameras. They’re outside of my budget, are large and heavy compared to the X-series, and I think my use-case for one would be fairly limited. But, something like the GFX100RF would be interesting to me because the size and weight are likely to be less than typical GFX gear, and probably less expensive than a GFX100S II plus a lens. It would be a good way to dip my toes into GFX without having to buy a whole new system, or lug around something large and heavy.

One criticism that the camera is likely to receive is the lack of IBIS, but I think not having IBIS is just fine for a camera like this. First, outside of video and low-light situations, IBIS is really unnecessary for wide-angle lenses. Second, it adds size, weight, and cost, so its exclusion might actually be beneficial. Third, I think the whole “you need IBIS on 100mp because you can see even the smallest blur” argument is overstated. On this camera, IBIS would be occasionally nice to have, but far from essential, so it doesn’t bother me that the GFX100RF will apparently not have it.

*Tunnel Silhouette* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – Classic Negative Industrial

The lens choice will probably be debated for a long time. Since fixed-lens cameras are stuck at whatever focal-length they are, you have to really like what it is. The 35mm lens on a GFX is like 18mm on APS-C (think Fujifilm X70 and Ricoh GR), or 28mm on full frame (think Leica Q3). That’s obviously a very popular focal-length, but it’s not for everyone. I personally prefer less wide-angle lenses most of the time (the X100VI, for example, is sometimes too wide for me). I completely understand the focal length choice for the GFX100RF; however, I kind of wish it was more like 50mm (40mm full-frame-equivalent), but that’s just my preference, and probably not what would be most desired by the majority of potential buyers.

And let’s not forget the maximum aperture of “only” f/4. That’s not an impressive maximum aperture, but also not unusual for medium-format. A larger maximum aperture would require a larger and heavier (and more expensive) lens, which would defeat the purpose of the GFX100RF. Back in 2021 I talked about this a bit: while GFX has a potentially smaller depth-of-field and better low-light capabilities, the fact that the maximum apertures are often smaller means that you oftentimes can’t fully realize those advantages. It’s a catch-22. Although f/2.8 would have been nice, f/4 as a maximum aperture is completely unsurprising to me, and probably required some engineering magic to even make that work.

We will have to wait a few more months to really know what the GFX100RF camera will be like, but what I can tell you is that this is the most excited I have been for a GFX model in a very long time. I need to prepare now—make room in both my budget and in my camera bag—for when it is announced. I’m sure, like the X100VI, if you’re not quick to order, there will be a wait to get your hands on one, as I’m pretty sure that this will be a popular camera.

Fujifilm GFX Eterna Cinema Camera

Posted on November 12, 2024 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm just announced that they are creating a GFX Eterna cinema camera to be released sometime in 2025.

When I was at Fujifilm’s Create With Us event in Austin back in September, they had a Fujinon Duvo HZK 25-1000mm f/2.8-5.0 Box Lens on display. For those who don’t know, this is a quarter-million-dollar broadcast lens, used for sporting events. The camera attached to the lens was a Sony.

Fujinon lenses are renown in the cinema and broadcast world, but Fujifilm doesn’t have a filmmaking camera. Actually, Harlem Fragments was filmed on an X-H2s. A number of short films and mini documentaries have been filmed on an X-H2s, too. But, setting that aside, a true pro cinema camera—something ESPN would use, or Universal Pictures—was missing. I recognized this in Austin, and mentioned to the sales rep that Fujifilm should develop a camera to go with the lens, instead of using a competitor’s model. I guess they were already pretty far along in development, but I had no idea.

I don’t anticipate many, if any, reading this will ever buy the GFX Eterna. Maybe a couple of you. I’m sure it will be very expensive. But if you are a broadcaster or filmmaker, perhaps this is something you’re excited for. I can imagine some IMAX pictures being filmed on this.

One last thing: kudos to whoever at Fujifilm named the camera. It’s brilliant. A monochrome-only X100 Acros or X-Pro Acros would be really cool, too. Just throwing that out there.

New: Reala Ace Film Simulation

Posted on September 12, 2023 by Ritchie Roesch

Now that the X Summit is over and the GFX100 II has been officially announced, we have a little bit better idea of what exactly Fujifilm’s new film simulation is. First, the name is not Reala like was previously rumored, but Reala Ace. Not a huge difference, but different nonetheless.

Fujifilm has sometimes named certain film stocks differently in Japan than the rest of the world, and several film stocks were only made available in Japan. Fujicolor Reala Ace 100 was a color negative film sold only in Japan. Some speculated that it was the exact same thing as Fujicolor Superia Reala 100 (initially, Superia wasn’t in the emulsion name, but was added later) just sold under a slightly different name, while others said that Fujicolor Reala Ace 100 was a unique film similar to the Reala sold worldwide except fine-tuned for Japanese skin tones. For whatever reason, Fujifilm went with the name Reala Ace for their new film sim.

Prior to today’s announcement, I had speculated that “…the new film simulation will [not] be an accurate replication of Reala film, since Classic Negative is so close already; instead, I think Fujifilm is simply going to use the brand name for a film sim that has a neutral and natural rendering (true-to-life or real-like, yet leaning towards soft tonality and muted colors).” I also said, “I’m crossing my fingers that the Reala film simulation will be a tweak of Classic Negative that will more closely mimic Reala emulsions.”

I was half right and half wrong, but I’m quite happy to be half wrong. I was right that the film sim would lean towards soft tonality and have a true-to-life rendering. I was wrong that it wouldn’t look like Reala film or Classic Negative, because it does. You could call the new film sim Classic Negative v2, but Fujifilm named it Reala Ace.

*Leaving the Water* – Laguna Beach, CA – Fujifilm X-T5 – Fujicolor Reala 100 Recipe

How accurate is the Reala Ace film simulation to Reala film? It definitely has the right vibe, from the small number of samples I’ve found online. It isn’t all that dissimilar to my Fujicolor Reala 100 Film Simulation Recipe, either—in fact, I think just a few small adjustments to my Recipe brings the results closer to the new film simulation. Of course, I have no idea if those Reala Ace examples are unedited, and what parameter adjustments the photographer might have done, or if they’re all factory defaults.

Fujifilm has a graph demonstrating how the different film simulations fit on a tonality and saturation scale. It should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, there’s no way that Nostalgic Neg. is the second most vibrant film sim, because it’s not. PRO Neg. Hi has a little more saturation than PRO Neg. Std, yet they’re the same on the chart. Still, we can extrapolate that Reala Ace has softer tonality yet a tad higher vibrancy than Classic Negative.

Even though Reala Ace is essentially Classic Negative, I’m quite thrilled that this new film sim has an obvious analog aesthetic. Classic Negative is one of my favorite film simulations, and I’m sure Reala Ace will be, too, once I get a chance to use it someday in the future. My guess is that the upcoming Fujifilm X100Z (or whatever Fujifilm calls it… maybe they’ll name it X100Ace?) will be the first X-series camera to get Reala Ace. I won’t buy the GFX100 II (it’s way outside of my budget), so it might be awhile before I get to try it. From what I can tell, the new film sim will be found right below Classic Chrome and right above PRO Neg. Hi in the camera’s film simulation list.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be a lot of interest in this new film sim, but not necessarily by folks who will buy the GFX camera. The ones most excited seem to be those who anticipate that it will trickle to the X-series. Most of those who have reviewed the camera (who received a pre-production model from Fujifilm) barely mentioned it, and mainly as a passing thought. One did talk a little more about it (and right at the beginning), but otherwise the enthusiasm for Reala Ace seems to be much stronger from the X crowd than the GFX, despite it only found (for now) on GFX. This makes a lot of sense to me because most of those who shoot GFX cameras don’t use Film Simulation Recipes (yet there are some); however, many who have X-Trans cameras do use Recipes. Fujifilm should introduce new film sims on X-series models where they can better capitalize on that excitement, and not on GFX where it’s unimportant (generally speaking) to those buyers, essentially wasting the opportunity (hey, maybe Fujifilm should consult with me??!!).

I modified the Fujicolor Reala 100 Film Simulation Recipe on my Fujifilm X-T5, reprocessing in-camera some recent pictures on the SD Card, to more closely resemble the Reala Ace film simulation. You can find the Reala Recipe on this website (here) and on the Fuji X Weekly App. The modifications I made to the Fujicolor Reala 100 Recipe are: White Balance Shift set to 0 Red & +1 Blue (using Daylight WB… I also tried Auto White Balance with that same shift), Color Chrome FX Blue Strong, Color +1, Highlight -1.5, Sharpness 0, and Clarity -2. There are only a small number of examples of the new film sim, and it’s impossible to know if they’re 100% default Reala Ace or if they have been modified or edited in some way, but I think I’m in the ballpark with these settings. It’s pretty close. Below are some examples.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm GFX100 II:  B&H

Fujifilm GFX 4:3 Aspect Ratio

Posted on February 16, 2023 by Ritchie Roesch

The native aspect ratio of Fujifilm GFX cameras is 4:3. An aspect ratio is simply a mathematical expression of the shape of a sensor, film, picture, or screen. I’ve mostly shot with the 3:2 aspect ratio, which is the shape of 35mm film and many digital camera sensors, including Fujifilm X cameras, so the native GFX ratio isn’t something I’m used to.

The 4:3 aspect ratio has been around for a long time, and was the original shape of motion picture film beginning in the 1890’s. It would later become the standard shape of television screens and computer monitors for many decades, and today is the aspect ratio of most tablets, such as the iPad. It’s also the standard aspect ratio of Micro-Four-Thirds and digital medium-format cameras, and most old digicams and cellphone cameras use this ratio. 120 medium-format film can be (but isn’t always) shot in this aspect ratio, too.

While 4:3 is more square-like than 3:2, it is still a rectangle, yet I find it more challenging to compose within its shape. I personally like 3:2 and I’m quite comfortable with it. I even prefer to shoot 1:1 square instead of 4:3. The GFX aspect ratio just isn’t natural to me. It doesn’t seem like this should be a big deal, but for some reason it is for me. Over the last year I’ve challenged myself to use 4:3 more, so that I can be better at it.

*Shot on an iPhone using my RitchieCam App in the 4:3 aspect ratio*

Mainly I’ve used the 4:3 aspect ratio on my iPhone, which is the native shape of most cellphone cameras. My RitchieCam iPhone camera app does have many other ratios to choose from, and I don’t always use 4:3, but I’ve forced myself to use it more than ever before. This has certainly helped me not only refine my compositions within that shape, but become more accustomed to using it and seeing it. It has been becoming a bit more normalized for me. If you’ve used this ratio for years, that might seem like an odd statement, but I haven’t used it much ever (especially when compared to 3:2), so it has been outside of my comfort zone.

Fujifilm should add 4:3 as an aspect ratio choice on their X-series cameras. The current options are 3:2, 1:1, and 16:9. Why not add 4:3, 5:4, and 65:24? It doesn’t seem like it would take much programming effort to do so. Instead, if you want 4:3, you have to shoot GFX.

What about that top picture? What about the five pictures below? Which camera did I use for those to get a 4:3 aspect ratio? I didn’t crop them. They’re straight out of a Fujifilm camera—captured over the last two days and completely unedited—and they are all 4:3. Did I just buy a GFX camera, and, if so, which one? You’ll have to keep scrolling down to find out!

I did not buy a GFX camera, which you probably already guessed based on the photographs’ image quality. While I would certainly love to own one, it’s just not something that it’s in my budget. If Fujifilm ever wanted to give me one, I’d certainly accept the offer, but I’m definitely not holding my breath on that one!

So which Fujifilm camera did I shoot those images with? It couldn’t have been an X-series, right? Actually, the 2/3″ sensor X cameras—X10, X20, X30, XQ1, XQ2—do shoot naively in the 4:3 aspect ratio. But it wasn’t any of those models. And it wasn’t GFX. So what was it?

I used a lowly Fujifilm AX350 point-and-shoot digicam. This camera was number one in my The 5 Worst Fujifilm Cameras That You Should Never Own list, which was a tongue-in-cheek look at Fujifilm’s lesser appreciated models. Of course, any camera is “good enough” in the hands of a skilled photographer, including the AX350.

Interestingly, these old pocket point-and-shoot digicams are all the rage right now, particularly among Gen-Z. Why? There is a nostalgic aesthetic to their image quality. If you existed between 2000 and 2012, there’s a good chance that some of your most important or favorite life moments were captured on one of those cameras. These types of cameras were around before 2000, but film was still king by far. These types of cameras existed well after 2012, too, but more and more they were replaced by cellphones. If you were young between 2000 and 2012, you’re childhood memories are in part viewed through the aesthetic of cheap point-and-shoot digicams, so it makes sense that there would be some nostalgic feelings about it.

You can pick up these old digicams for next to nothing. If you don’t have one sitting in an old box or drawer somewhere, they commonly show up at thrift stores or yard sales for just a few dollars. I got mine from Goodwill about three-and-a-half years ago. It was in a box of various film and digital models, which I paid $40 for. I sold the two film cameras on eBay, and that paid for the lot. There were two kids cameras, which I kept—my youngest two children still play with them. There were two other point-and-shoot digital cameras that didn’t work, so they got tossed in the trash. The AX350 is the only thing that I kept for myself. I don’t use it often at all, but it’s fun to dust off every once in awhile. Although simple to operate, it’s a challenge to get quality results, so I find it to be a good photographic exercise.

Fujifilm GFX is 5 Years Old

Posted on January 19, 2022 by Ritchie Roesch

Five years ago today Fujifilm announced the GFX 50S camera, which launched the GFX medium-format line. The camera’s initial MSRP was $6,500, which was an insanely low price for medium-format, so it is no surprise that Fujifilm quickly became top-dog of the medium-format market.

I remember when Pentax released the 645D in 2010 with a price tag of “only” $10,000. People were shocked that you could get into medium-format so cheaply. Four years later the much improved 645Z was released with an even cheaper cost of $8,500, and people went nuts. Three years later Fujifilm undercut Pentax by $2,000 while delivering a superior camera. Finally, medium-format was affordable!

Of course, Fujifilm didn’t stop there. A year later they released the even cheaper (and much more cool) GFX 50R, with an MSRP of only $4,500! The GFX100 came next, which was the world’s first 100-megapixel mirrorless camera, at a whopping $10,000 price tag (remember when that was shockingly cheap?). Then came the GFX100S, a 100-megapixel model for only $6,000. A few months back Fujifilm released the GFX 50S II, an upgrade to the original GFX camera, with a retail price of only $4,000. Fujifilm has brought medium-format down to the price point of top-tier full-frame. It’s really quite amazing!

Despite the relatively low cost of GFX, it’s still out of my budget. The only time that I was able to shoot with one was last year when Fujifilm kindly loaned me a GFX 50S for a few weeks (read about it here). Maybe someday I’ll own one—that would be a dream come true. In the short time that I had my hands on it, I made three film simulation recipes for GFX: Classic Negative Industrial, Ektachrome, and Provia 400. GFX owners can use X-Trans IV recipes, as the X-T3 and X-T30 recipes are compatible with the “older” GFX models while the recipes for newer X-Trans IV cameras are compatible with newer GFX models. For example, in the video below, I used the Kodak Vision3 250D recipe on the GFX 50S with much success.

A lot of people have questioned Fujifilm’s decision to skip full-frame. When they launched their APS-C X-Trans line, crop sensors were generally regarded as for amateurs and not professionals. That mindset, of course, has changed significantly over the last 10 years as the quality of APS-C cameras has closed the gap on lower-end full-frame cameras, and in some aspects surpassed it. More and more professional and advanced enthusiasts are ditching their bulky full-frame gear for light and nimble APS-C models, like the Fujifilm X-T4. And some cameras, like the X100 and X-Pro series, are just more fun. So sticking with the smaller sensor wasn’t such a mistake after all.

As for GFX, not only has Fujifilm dominated the medium-format market since introducing the GFX 50S five years ago, but they’ve also been able to compete against the high-end full-frame market. People are asking, “Should I spend $6,500 on a Sony Alpha 1 or $6,000 on a GFX100S?” And, “Should I buy the Canon EOS R5 for $3,900 or the GFX 50S II for only $100 more?” So Fujifilm is able to attack the full-frame market from both the bottom and top, while not investing any R&D into launching a new system. Where Fujifilm cannot compete is with mid-range full-frame cameras. I think Fujifilm could do a 40-ish megapixel X100-like full-frame fixed-lens camera, which would be absolutely wonderful, and wouldn’t require investments into a new system—that’s the most practical way for Fujifilm to get into the mid-range full-frame market, and otherwise it’s just not in their cards, which I’m completely alright with.

It’s quite an accomplishment to enter and completely dominate a market segment within such a short period of time, yet that’s exactly what Fujifilm has done with GFX. It all began with the launch of the GFX 50S five years ago today.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

GFX 50S B&H Amazon
GFX 50R B&H Amazon (currently only $3,000!)
GFX100 B&H Amazon
GFX100S B&H Amazon
GFX 50S II B&H

New GFX-50S II Coming Soon

Posted on June 27, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

According to Fujirumors, Fujifilm will be releasing a new GFX-50S II medium-format camera in the second half of 2021 (most likely, sometime in the fall). Fujifilm loaned me the original GFX-50S camera earlier this year, and at that time I said Fujifilm would likely be replacing the GFX-50S with a new model soon. Sure enough, they are!

What Fujirumors has so far reported on the new version is that it will be in the same body as the GFX100S, which means that it will also have IBIS, it will have the same sensor as the GFX-50S and GFX-50R, and it will cost only $4,000 (and $4,500 when bundled with the upcoming GF35-70mm lens). That’s stunning!

Even though it’s an older sensor, I really appreciate how the GFX-50S renders pictures, particularly in shadows. I don’t mind that the camera won’t include a brand-new sensor. What I hope is that it includes a new processor, preferably the one inside the GFX100S. If the GFX-50S is a GFX100S, except with an “old” 50-megapixel sensor instead of a new 100-megapixel sensor, for only four thousand dollars, that’s unbelievable! It will be a hit, I have no doubts about it. I might have to get one myself.

It should be mentioned that, for most people, there’s not a big advantage of GFX over Fujifilm X. Yes, GFX produces lovely pictures that are a pixel-peeper’s dream, but unless you print very large, crop really deeply, and/or need that extra dynamic range in the shadows, Fujifilm X cameras will serve you very well for a whole lot less money.

Fujifilm GFX-50S + Kodak Vision3 250D

Posted on March 15, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

In the video above I photographed the Great Salt Lake Shorelands Preserve using a Fujifilm GFX-50S programmed with the Kodak Vision3 250D film simulation recipe. Take a look!

Sometimes film simulation recipes can be used with sensors that they weren’t intended for, but the results can still be good. For example, X-Trans I & II recipes can be used with Bayer sensor cameras, like the X-T200; while the results won’t be identical, you might appreciate the aesthetic anyway. I’ve used Bayer recipes an my X-T1, which is X-Trans II, with good results. The recipe that I used in the video is intended for the X-T3 and X-T30 cameras, but it worked well on the GFX-50S.

Review: Fujifilm GFX-50S + Fujinon GF 23mm F/4

Posted on March 7, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm recently sent me a GFX-50S and Fujinon 23mm f/4 lens to borrow for a few weeks. I’ve been wanting to try GFX ever since it came out, but it’s expensive and well outside of my budget, so I never had the chance. Now, thanks to Fujifilm North America, I was able to give the GFX-50S a try—a dream come true! It was very difficult to mail the camera and lens back because I really wanted to keep it.

The Fujifilm GFX-50S is not a new camera. In fact, it’s four-years-old now. The model sent to me has been circulated to many other photographers and countless reviewers, and you’ve likely seen this exact camera before. So much has already been said about it. I want this review to be different than all the others, which will be a difficult accomplishment; I won’t go into all the technical details that are easily found online. Also, with the release of the GFX100S, I believe that the GFX-50S will likely be discontinued soon.

My perspective for this review is that I’m a JPEG-shooter who uses Fujifilm’s APS-C X-series cameras, something regular readers of this blog are well aware of. Shooting JPEGs on GFX might seem strange, but you might be surprised by the number of people who are doing just that. I’m quite happy by the image quality produced by Fujifilm’s smaller sensors, but I’ve been fascinated by Fujifilm’s medium-format line since this camera was announced. I was curious what the differences are between Fujifilm X and GFX, and whether the advantages are worth the significantly steeper sticker price that comes with the larger sensor.

In this review I want to cover are some myths regarding medium-format photography. There are some things circulating around the internet that are not true or are only partially true, so I think it’s important to discuss these and set the record straight.

Myth #1: You get a much more shallow depth-of-field with medium-format than APS-C. There actually is some truth to this myth, but it’s not completely correct. It’s a mathematical calculation related to crop factor, but essentially, all things being, um, equivalently equal, medium-format will have a more shallow depth-of-field than APS-C with the same aperture. But things aren’t always equal. Lets look at a couple examples. The GF 80mm f/1.7, which is full-frame equivalent to 63mm, cannot produce quite as small of a depth-of-field as the XF 50mm f/1, which is full-frame equivalent to 75mm; but if you compare that same GF 80mm lens to the XF 35mm f/1.4, which is full-frame equivalent to 52mm, the GF lens is capable of a smaller depth-of-field. So, yes, it is possible to achieve a more shallow depth-of-field with GFX, and, yes, it is possible to achieve a more shallow depth-of-field with X-Trans, just depending on the lenses being used; however, most GF lenses have a maximum aperture of f/2.8, f/3.5 or f/4, so if you’re trying to take advantage of the potential shallow depth-of-field advantage of medium-format, your lens choices are the GF 80mm f/1.7 or the GF 110mm f/2. I think, otherwise, the advantage disappears because there are number of XF lenses that have larger maximum apertures than their GFX counterparts, and can produce a similar or even sometimes smaller depth-of-field.

Myth #2: GFX is better for low-light photography. There definitely is a clear high-ISO advantage that the GFX-50S has over X-Trans. It’s at least one stop, probably more. But, as was discussed in Myth #1, GF lenses often have smaller maximum apertures than XF lenses, which means that you’re often going to be using higher ISOs with GFX cameras than X-Trans cameras in the same situation. In other words, it’s a good thing that high-ISO is better, because you’re going to need it.

Myth #3: The resolution advantage of GFX over X-Trans is massive. I’ve never used either of the 100MP cameras; however, the 50MP sensor on the GFX-50S is fantastic—full of fine, crisp details—and is basically double the resolution of X-Trans III and IV. It’s a pixel-peeper’s dream! But is there a practical advantage to all that resolution? I printed some pictures captured with the GFX-50S and some identical pictures captured with an X-T30 to see what differences there might be. What I discovered is that you need to print 24” x 36” to really notice, and even then it’s not a night-and-day difference, and without closely comparing the prints side-by-side it’s not obvious, as the X-T30 images held up pretty well. If you aren’t printing at least that big, or cropping deeply, the resolution advantage is essentially meaningless. Those who need 50MP know who they are, so if you’re not sure, it most likely means that you don’t.

This isn’t a myth, but worth noting nonetheless: the GFX-50S isn’t quick. There’s a pause, similar to using Clarity on newer X-Trans IV cameras, after capturing an exposure. It takes a moment for the camera to write an image to the card. The GFX-50S is a camera to take your time with. Despite the pause similar to using Clarity, the JPEG options on this camera are more similar to the X-T3 and X-T30, except that it does have the Classic Negative film simulation.

Something that I did really appreciate about the GFX-50S is the dynamic range. Highlights don’t look much different than X-Trans, but there’s a noticeable difference in the shadows. Shadows in X-Trans JPEGs are a little more like slide film, while shadows in GFX-50S JPEGs are a little more like print film. I very much enjoyed how the GFX camera renders pictures, even though it’s only subtly different than X-Trans.

I did mention that this was a review of both the GFX-50S camera and the GF 23mm F/4 R LM WR lens. This lens is ultra-wide, with a full-frame equivalent focal-length of 18mm. There’s some distortion, so don’t expect straight lines to be straight, especially toward the edges of the frame. It’s super sharp, as you’d expect it to be, and a great option for dramatic landscapes. I don’t imagine that this would be very many people’s choice for a first lens, but it definitely would be an excellent addition to the landscape photographer’s bag.

The GFX-50S is an excellent camera that I would love to own. The body retails for $5,500, and the 23mm lens retails for $2,600, bringing the total for this kit to $8,100, which is a lot. That’s well outside of my budget. If I often made large prints and my income came from those prints, this would likely be money well spent. Otherwise, my opinion is that the GFX-50S is overkill for most people and most purposes. Those who would benefit from this camera already know who they are. If I had thousands of dollars in my pocket to spend on gear and affording the GFX-50S was no problem, I still wouldn’t buy it, because I’d rather use that money on experiences than cameras. But if I did own the GFX-50S, I’d be very happy with it, because the images that it produces are so nice. I’m grateful that Fujifilm loaned me the camera and lens, and, while it was difficult to send back because I enjoyed it so much, it did make me appreciate even more just how good X-Trans cameras are. GFX is capable of better image quality, no doubt, but Fujifilm X is still quite excellent—almost as good as the GFX-50S—which is nothing short of amazing.

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm GFX-50S Amazon B&H
Fujinon GF 23mm f/4 Amazon B&H

Example photographs, captured with the Fujifilm GFX-50S and Fujinon GF 23mm F/4 R LM WR lens:

*Lake Ripples* – Antelope Island SP, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Uncertain Road* – Antelope Island SP, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*The Causeway Road* – Antelope Island SP, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Tiny Niagara* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Reeds & Birds* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Brown Among Green* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*January Forest* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Forest Creek* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Creekside Trail* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Backlit* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Flasher* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Tunnel Silhouette* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Frozen Marsh Water* – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Ice Tracks in the Reeds* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Marsh Ice Tracks* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Lookout Tower* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Marsh Boardwalk* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Reeds & Grass* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Winter Marsh* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Twisted* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Sky Railing* – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

*Big Sky Over Yellow House* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S & Fujinon 23mm

Fujifilm GFX100S

Posted on February 3, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm recently announced the 102-megapixel medium-format GFX100S. This camera is already making big waves because of the the high-resolution sensor and because of the “small” price-tag of “only” $6,000 (body only). A lot of people are talking about this upcoming camera—in fact, I visited a local camera store, and the GFX100S was a hot topic that was being discussed by those in the store.

Back in June I published an article, Shrinking Camera Market: What Fujifilm Should Do In 2021 & Beyond, and I suggested that Fujifilm should make a camera like the GFX100S (although I said it should be rangefinder-styled). I think it’s a good move for Fujifilm, and this camera will be highly successful. Already preorders have apparently exceeded expectations, and you might have to exercise some patience if you want to get your hands on one and you didn’t preorder on the day it was announced.

I don’t have a lot of experience with GFX cameras. Fujifilm recently loaned me a GFX-50S, which is four-years-old now and surely about to be discontinued. I’m grateful to have been give the opportunity to briefly try a GFX camera—a dream come true, really! For the most part the benefit of medium format is only truly realized if you crop really deeply or print very large. Still, I hope to one day try the GFX100S myself, although it won’t likely be anytime soon, and will likely only happen if Fujifilm lets me borrow one for a few weeks. The GFX100S, even though priced very low for what it is, is still significantly outside of my budget. I’m sure many of you can relate.

The GFX-50S that Fujifilm sent me has been used by so many other photographers. If you’ve read reviews of this camera or watched YouTube videos about it, you’ve probably seen this exact camera before. It’s difficult to know precisely who has used it—there are a lot of people who have reviewed it and probably a couple different bodies floating around—but I know for certain that Julien Jarry is one because he put a sticker on the bottom. Well played!

Julien is a talented photographer and videographer, and a friend of mine. I had the pleasure to photograph with him this last summer out at Antelope Island State Park, and you’ll notice him in a couple of pictures in the Kodak Portra 400 v2 film simulation recipe. It’s an honor to use the same gear that Julien used.

If someday Fujifilm loans me a GFX100S, you know that I’ll publish several articles about it on the Fuji X Weekly blog, and create some film simulation recipes, too! It might be a long time before that happens, if it ever happens. I hope it does, and I will be grateful for the opportunity, because I’m certain that the GFX100S is an amazing camera.

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 B&H

Fujifilm GFX-50S Film Simulation Recipe: Classic Negative Industrial

Posted on January 18, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

*January Forest* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – “Classic Negative Industrial”

One of my favorite film simulation recipes is Fujicolor 100 Industrial, which is intended for Fujifilm X-T30 and X-T3 cameras. X-Trans IV recipes for the X-T30 and X-T3 plus X-Trans III recipes are compatible with the GFX-50S, but the results seem to be very slightly different. I programmed the Fujicolor 100 Industrial recipe into the GFX-50S. Later I updated the firmware, which added the Classic Negative film simulation; it just so happened that the Fujicolor 100 Industrial recipe was selected, and I changed the film simulation from PRO Neg. Std to Classic Negative with this recipe still programmed. I immediately loved the results!

This film simulation recipe, with Classic Negative instead of PRO Neg. Std, doesn’t mimic real Fujicolor 100 Industrial film as well as the original recipe, I don’t think, but the results are pretty nice nonetheless. It can be magical! It’s not a recipe for every situation, but it is indeed beautiful in the right situations. It’s a very happy accident!

*Forest Creek* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – “Classic Negative Industrial”

I believe that this film simulation recipe is compatible with all GFX cameras, although I’m not completely sure about the GFX100 (it should be). It cannot be used on the X-T30 and X-T3 because those cameras don’t have Classic Negative, but it can be used on other X-Trans IV cameras (X100V, X-Pro3, X-T4 and X-S10) by selecting Color Chrome FX Blue Off, Clarity 0 (or maybe -2), and Grain Weak + Small; however, results will be slightly different. I tried it on my Fujifilm X100V and it did, in fact, look good, but it’s really intended for GFX cameras.

Classic Negative
Dynamic Range: DR400
Highlight: +1
Shadow: +2
Color: +1
Color Chrome Effect: Weak
Sharpening: +1
Noise Reduction: -4
Grain Effect: Weak
White Balance: 3200K, +8 Red & -8 Blue
ISO: Auto up to ISO 6400
Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +2/3 (typically)

Sample photographs, all camera-made JPEGs, captured with a Fujifilm GFX-50S using this Classic Negative Industrial recipe:

*Tunnel Silhouette* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Pedestrian Tunnel* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Manhole Cover* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*No Parking Any Time* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Flasher* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Fallen Tree on Frozen Lake* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Smiling Jo* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*January Sun in the Forest* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Backlit* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Creekside Trail* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Vines on Trees* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Spiky Leaves* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Sunlight Trail* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

*Brown Among Green* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm GFX-50S Amazon B&H
Fujinon GF 23mm f/4 Amazon B&H

Help Fuji X Weekly

$2.00

Medium Format vs Crop Sensor: How Much Better is Fujifilm GFX than Fujifilm X?

Posted on January 17, 2021 by Ritchie Roesch

Fujifilm North America sent me a GFX-50S medium-format camera and Fujinon 23mm lens to go with it. The camera and lens aren’t mine; I get to use them for a few weeks, then return them to Fujifilm. The camera is $5,500 (it was $6,500 when it came out four years ago), and the lens is $2,600, so just over $8,000 altogether. This is the most expensive camera and lens that I’ve ever put my hands on!

There are two questions that I want to answer: how much better is medium-format GFX over the APS-C X cameras, and which film simulation recipes, if any, are compatible with GFX. By the way, this isn’t my review of the camera. I’ll write that after I’ve had it for longer. This article is the first step towards a review. I’m simply trying to answer a couple of questions about the GFX-50S camera.

Yesterday I did a little survey on my Instagram account: can you tell the difference between pictures captured on my Fujifilm X-T30 with a Rokinon 12mm lens (a $1,200 combo) and those captured on a GFX-50S with a Fujinon 23mm lens? By far, most photographs are viewed on social media. People post their pictures on Instagram and Facebook and other platforms, and that’s how we see them. Printed photographs are far less common. That’s just the way it is. I wanted to know: on social media, is it even possible to tell the difference between pictures captured using $1,200 gear and $8,000 gear?

Before I get into the responses to that survey, I want to briefly talk about the technical stuff—the why. The reason that I chose the X-T30 is because its JPEG settings are very similar to the GFX-50S’ JPEG settings. I used the same film simulation recipes, Kodak Ultramax for color and Kodak Tri-X 400 for black-and-white, on both cameras (this also allowed me to see how similar or dissimilar recipes are rendered on these cameras). I chose the Rokinon 12mm lens because it has the same 18mm full-frame-equivalent focal length as the 23mm lens on the GFX camera. I used f/8 on the Rokinon and f/16 on the Fujinon (to better match the depth-of-field) and adjusted the shutter speed to compensate; otherwise, the settings on both cameras were identical.

Here are the pictures that I posted to Instagram, in the same order:

Now to that survey! The majority of the comments were something to the effect of, “I can’t tell which camera took which pictures.” There were 10 people who took a guess, and five got it right and five wrong. I was actually surprised that five people figured it out—some of you have very keen eyes! There were three sets of two pictures to allow for direct comparisons, but the final two pictures weren’t a set, and those two pictures tripped up a few people who otherwise figured out the rest. Even a couple of those who guessed correctly said that they weren’t certain on those last two. The takeaway is that, on social media, if you study the pictures carefully and can side-by-side compare, there is a barely noticeable difference between images captured on GFX cameras and those captured on X cameras, but otherwise you can’t tell.

Of course, you’re not spending $8,000 for good-looking social media pictures, but for good-looking prints. So I printed the pictures! All of the prints were 8″ x 12″, but I made some crops that would be about 16″ x 24″, 24″ x 36″, and 40″ x 60″ if the rest of the picture was there. Here are a few of those crops:

I studied the prints, then I had my wife, Amanda, look at them. We both came to the same conclusion: printed at 8″ x 12″ it’s really difficult to tell which camera captured which picture; at 16″ x 24″ it’s a little easier to tell but still very tough; at 24″ x 36″ it’s more obvious, but the X-T30 still looks pretty good; and at 40″ x 60″ the GFX is the clear winner, but the X-T30 image isn’t awful.

The Fujifilm GFX-50S costs six times as much as the Fujifilm X-T30. Does it produce six times better image quality? No. Does it produce twice as good image quality? No. Is it a pixel-peeper’s dream? Yes! If you like to zoom into your images and admire the fine details that can only be noticed when you look closely, the GFX-50S is a great option. If you need to crop deeply and still have good-looking pictures, the GFX-50S will deliver. If you print really, really big, the GFX-50S is indeed a fine photographic tool. Outside of that, there’s not a big advantage to the medium-format camera. In fact, there might be as many disadvantages as there are advantages, but that’s a discussion for another time. Did I mention that those files look really nice when you look really close?

*Forest Creek* – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – Classic Negative

I have seven different film simulation recipes programmed into the GFX-50S right now, and here’s my probably-too-soon opinion: X-Trans III recipes and X-Trans IV recipes that are compatible with the X-T3 and X-T30 are usable on the GFX-50S… but they don’t look exactly the same. One difference is that the JPEGs from the GFX-50S are slightly less saturated and a hair less warm; it’s very minor but noticeable when side-by-side comparing. The GFX-50S has a larger dynamic range, which not only gives you more latitude for highlight and shadow recovery, but also produces a more flat picture; that’s not necessarily bad, just different. The GFX-50S has Classic Negative—yea!—but not the other JPEG options, such as Clarity and Color Chrome FX Blue, that the newer X-Trans IV cameras have.

I look forward to shooting more with the GFX-50S, and I know it will be difficult to send back. Using it reaffirms that X series cameras are fantastic and that the gap between APS-C and medium-format isn’t as big as what one might think. There are people who would benefit from the larger sensor and higher resolution that the GFX-50S offers, and those people likely know who they are. If I could, I would definitely own this camera, but it’s not a big deal that I don’t because my other Fujifilm cameras are pretty darn good, too.