Fuji GFX 100II VS Canon R5 🤯 Is MEDIUM FORMAT FINALLY THE ONLY CAMERA YOU NEED? FULL COMPARISON 

I appreciate you brother!! I really wish you could come to an in person workshop as well!!

Thank you! Always love it when you stop by! Yes I did find the r5 video files easier to edit. The opposite was true for photos. I guess you just can’t have it all in one body

Thank you! I’ve heard Panasonic sensors are great! I do t have any experience with their lenses. I would say out of the ones currently. The Nikon sensors are the best in my opinion and their higher end lenses are really good but very huge.

I have not.

@@SNAPAVELI I would love to see you do a review of that combination, even if you just rent dji’s tech for a few days I subscribed btw

Thank you! Yes it goes to 12 bit at 8fps. If you go to the description in my last video you can download 12 , 14 and 16 bit. Files from the 100ii. That way you can see if it’s a deal breaker

I really can’t say. I had it on loan about 3 months ago so unless that update was out at that point.

@@SNAPAVELI thanks for the reply! The latest big update for the GFX II made improvements in AF tracking and performance. It came out yesterday, so quite fresh :)

Thank you! I totally agree with you. I jumped around for a while between Nikon Sony and canon. Canon has the most reliable autofocus in my opinion. I also like the colors. Nikon and canon has better dynamic range at times but nothing beats the gfx files in my opinion. I’m currently saving for a 100ii myself. R5 and 100ii will be a great pair for me.

I would say get the sigma 50mm 1.4 , the ef 1.2 is a little soft. Plus the sigma has a bigger element to help with the technique!

@@SNAPAVELI Thanks! It is just that they are not that different in second hand price where I'm from. $770 for the canon ef 1.2 and $600 for the sigma 1.4 art. So i am tempted by the 1.2 aperture. The older sigma 1.4 hsm is just $240 though.

That’s a tough question! I had the ef 50 1.2 for a year and it was love hate, it’s really soft wide open. Beautiful bokeh but 1.2 was very soft. If you could test both it would be really helpful. People bring the sigma 50 1,4 to my workshops and it performs well.

@@SNAPAVELI I could probably live with trading softness for bokeh on outdoor shoots. But based on what you said that it is easier for the sigma to achieve what you are teaching because of the larger front element, I would probably go the sigma art route now. And just take out the 135mm if I really need more bokeh. Thanks for the replies!

Definitely! I tried my 110 f2 but I think it needed an update. It wasn’t focusing well at all and that lens is fast. I wish I had the camera for more time to test more

Definitely want to try the r3! What are the video files like?

@@SNAPAVELI I also have a cinema camera so I don't use it too often but when I do it's as a B-cam. The files are very good in Raw (6k) but the limiting factor is clog 3... I hate canon for that to be honest. Having that gorgeous 6k raw in clog 2 would have been Soo nice. The files are huge too, it needs more efficient codecs too.

I really want to try the hasselblad. Haven’t been able to get my hands on one yet. It looks amazing

Hows the colors and tones of the gfx 50r vs sl3?

@@Evrce they´re both good, but the leica sl3 is a better camera. Just stay way from the gfx 100.

I definitely want to get back into the Nikon system at some point once I get my Fuji system filled out. Nikon files were always great to me. The autofocus is finally catching up

@@SNAPAVELI yea, love Nikon files. You shouldn’t hate on Sony, their new cameras are fantastic

Definitely don’t hate on Sony! I loved my a7riii , plus they have the sigma 35 1.2 , one of my favorite lenses.

Very good point! It’s a market that definitely needed addressed! In 10 years perhaps all full frames will be capable of that. I just can’t imagine the culling process for that

I appreciate that! I’ve not tried to see if it bleeds less at 1.4 but will definitely try. It’s just such an incredible look at 1.2 I usually just leave it open

@@SNAPAVELI Highly welcome - from my experience with the RF 85, stopping down from 1.2 to 1.4 makes a significant difference in terms of contrast and colour punch. On the other hand, at places with hard theatre or concert lighting, the lower contrast at 1.2 can be beneficial.

Yes! It’s just for sake of reviewing. Both are really incredible

I like carrots

Only if you're an incompetent photographer that can't understand that each different tool provides an array of pros and cons for an artistic effect that will interface differently tp and for each artist's preferences and goals....whereas in nutrition the food is a fuel and always needed for health, with preferences for taste being secondary and having no effect on whether the nutrition acts as fuel.

@@locophoto6881 Really? I was waiting for you to make this revelation to me after nearly fifty years of photography, and being pro for a long while!!! A camera, any camera has but one function and that is to record what the photographer aims tha lens and the camera at. That is it. \These days, almost 100 % of cameras on offer from the big makers are more than competent for the job. Any differences are just due to gimmicks and marketing. That is gidt of it.

My buddy shoots medium format film , it definitely has an incredible look with the right lens!

You don't make any sense bud...."medium format" has more than one definition since it refers to a format size that started in film technology, which is very much outclassed by current GFX sensor capture especially in dynamic range and tonal transitions as well as resolution. "Medium format" in the digital world is a term that can mean a lot of things since "medium format" sensors are just sensors about the size of medium format film camera sizes (6x4.5 all the way up to 6x17 panoramic, especially typically refers to 6x6 and 6x7), but....of what era? GFX is far better than earlier "medium format" digital captures, but isn't quite as good as current medium format digital that costs way way way way way more than a GFX system, but GFX is in use for all forms of work and it clearly is in a league of it's own above DSLR 35mm size sensors, which is what is what was supposed to be case even in film days, but 6x4.5 wasn't always so impressive compared to 35mm films and lenses depending on subject matter and how large the prints to be made would be....so your'e very very wrong bud....there's a lot of context to consider and only a momo would say as a blanket statement that GFX is not a "real" medium format camera or say that the comparison "isn't a good comparison"....congrats on missing a lot of points completely.

@@SNAPAVELI I’ve use some medium format film before but those cameras keep getting more expensive

@@locophoto6881 I think you’re confused bud. Calling the GFX medium format is the same as call a crop sensor “full frame”. In fact the gfx is a cropped medium format. It’s not even close. GFX sensor size is only 44x33 mm, which is less than 10 mm larger than full frame of 36 x 24 While the smallest film medium format camera is 60 mm x 45mm. And it only gets larger from there: 6x6, 6x7, 6x9. The point is if you’re using medium format film lens on a gfx then you’re getting a cropped image compared to if you used that same lens on a 645 camera.

@@creativevisiongaming And the crop factor is about .8 on a GFX depending on which aspect ration is being used....so in other words....the difference is about 20% give or take....and in other words....you've missed the point completely again from wanting to sound like a know it all when you know very little. No intelligent person argues that something that is 80% like something else is "not even close to being a fair comparison basically" to paraphrase you....when hmmm...seems like 80% progress toward the end zone on a football is field is pretty close to the endzone...and 80% of the way to saving up to pay for a house is pretty close to having a house paid off.....so yep, 80% is very similar to "medium format" especially when the remaining 20% "difference" can be actually better on the GFX side depending on sensor differences and subject matter contexts...and that's not even talking about price comparisons yet, which is a fair attribute to consider when comparing which is "better" or "similar". But I know....I've talked with many guys like you over the years, you're still right.....because you're not about learning, you're about being "right" so you can see yourself and show yourself as a subject matter expert while not being able to do strong photography. Photographers photograph well.....or focus on improving toward that aim....others just want to play a role.

I don’t know, we were making jokes and having fun. It’s was like a freezer out there.

@@SNAPAVELI Laughter and jokes can easily be done while in pain....just a very strange thing to see....no one cries from it just being cold out....she looks very sad in other parts of the video...no joy coming through.....deep down she just doesn't look happy and that's not bad unto itself...just an observation.....but my radar is pretty accurate and crying with a stoic face is a big red flag that she's suppressing something inwardly while trying to look a different way outwardly...which we all do to different degrees. Just feel for her...but something is going on there.

I hope that’s not the case! She’s a joy to be around

@@SNAPAVELI A lot of people working through their pain are the life of the party kind of personalities...their pain drives them to try to get people to like them or create a fun that distracts them from their inner hurting. Pain has a cure though, so hopefully she is met with love and compassion over whatever issue might be the source of pain, if I'm right.

@@locophoto6881you’re wrong, don’t be a weirdo