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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
Ektachrome is a brand of Kodak color transparency film that’s been around (off and on) since the 1940’s. There have been several eras of the film, and even more variations; the name Ektachrome has been given to many different emulsions. While Kodachrome was more iconic, Ektachrome was more widely used, thanks in part to its easier development process and (typically) faster ISOs. While Ektachrome was more popular, it was much more prone to color fading. Kodachrome was a tad warmer, while Ektachrome was a tad more vibrant, depending on the version, of course. I shot plenty of rolls, and several different versions, of Ektachrome back in the day.
The Classic Chrome film simulation is, I believe, largely based on Ektachrome; set to defaults, Classic Chrome has a similar aesthetic to the film. I tweaked the settings so that Classic Chrome would more closely resemble Ektachrome, but I used my memory of the film and didn’t study actual examples of it. Fujifilm has a term for this: memory color. It basically means that it’s more important to have the right feel than to be perfectly accurate. I’m not exactly sure how accurate this recipe is to the film, or which exact emulsion it would be closest to (maybe 100G? 100GX?), but it feels right to me.
Winter Tree – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – “Ektachrome”
This Ektachrome film simulation is intended for GFX cameras. I know that it’s compatible the GFX-50S and GFX-50R, and I believe that it’s compatible with the GFX100, but I’m not 100% certain. You can also use it on the Fujifilm X-T3 and X-T30, and it will produce nearly identical results; on the X100V, X-T4, X-Pro3 and X-S10, set Clarity to 0 (or -2 if you prefer), Color Chrome FX Blue Off, and Grain to Weak Small.
Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: +1 Shadow: +1 Color: +3 Color Chrome Effect: Weak Sharpening: +1 Noise Reduction: -4 Grain Effect: Weak White Balance: 7100K, -6 Red & +5 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 Ektachrome recipe:
Forest Creek – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Log Chair Boy – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Three Poles – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Pole Twists – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
End Post – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Boardwalk in the Marsh – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S – “Ektachrome”
The Roundabout – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Signs Along the Boardwalk – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Ice Tracks in the Reeds – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Marsh Ice Tracks – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Hairpin Curve – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Birdseye View – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Rural Boardwalk – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Fence in the Grass – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Tiny Islands in a Frozen Pond – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Winter Grass – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Frozen March Water – Layton, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Cold Marsh – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Reed & Snow – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Snow Day Girl – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Sled Hill Photography – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Needle Snow – Farmington, UT – Fujifilm GFX-50S
Winter Pine – 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.
Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There’s a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!
