It should not be downplayed the quality of Jordan's shots on this one. Especially the radio tower coming perfectly out of the hand rail, while simultaneously framing Chris perfectly in the frame created by the building architecture behind him. Chefs kiss 🤌
Also, some of the scenes for the slow-mo test seem to be near a highly-reflective building, leading to a pretty great 2-pt light effect. @@scotthayesproductions5715
Really great colors, although I think the foreground - background separation is a bit overcooked. On an iPad Pro it makes the background look a bit like bluescreen
I bought a month ago a Fuji GFX 100 first generation (old new stock at a fantastic price, in a camera shop, never used, 1/3 of the list price with 2 years full warranty). The image quality is fantastic and I'm coming from a Sony A7RV. But most people are not able to see the difference: this is just a fact ! I sold all my Sony gears and have zero regret. Even the handling of the body is really fine for me. I'm a big fan of this platform and surely in the future this 100 II will replace (or complete) my GFX100. Of course I'm not a street photographer, not a sport photographer, not a wildlife photographer : mainly studio ! If you don't have the budget for this camera and if the image quality is the main reason of your choice, please try the first generation !
Me too, I am using gfx100 with manual lenes and still love the images from 100ver1, but if the price of ver2 is dropped in in the future, I will consider for replacement.
I have a GFX100 and it is great. Suggest shooting video with a Ninja V using the ProRes HQ codec. You will be blown away. It is as good anything shot out there. The GFX 100 II takes it two steps further with internal ProRes HQ recording and 4K 60 fps.
The lighting in that urban park was incredible!😮 Movie quality! Must be a sun light bounce from surrounding buildings. Made everything pop and great dr. 👍
Its the sensor. Once you use an incredible camera like this, you won't want to go back to "full frame" and its small sensor with inferior image quality.
Chris in the crouch - and delivering some killer shots! 😂 I would say this should be a part of every review. Immediately shows what the camera can do with humans and not just back alley dumpsters. And kudos on the color and lines of this video, just gorgeous.
The battery life is rated so conservatively. At weddings I use this gfx ii and after 900-1000 shots the battery typically shows 30-40% left. Absolutely love the cam btw!
The CIPA battery rating protocol is totally outdated. It needs to be updated to measure operational time instead of shots, because for mirrorless cameras that’s the real metric: how much time can you keep the body turned on doing stuff.
Thanks for your review, you confirm the feelings I had of this camera when, last month, I had the chance to briefly test it during a Fuji event: an outstanding MF budget portrait camera, once you know the limitations you can get incredible beautiful shots. And thanks to educate people: You guys are probably the only RU-vidrs that fully understand the relation between bit depth sensor readout and dynamic range. 🙏🙏
Props to the video-DP and editor! (Jordan?) I'm really noticing the extra production quality and polishing compared to your time at DPreview (which stills holds up honestly). Specifically, I noticed strong opening scenes with well-planned locations to solidify my engagement. Handling, AF, IBIS, and burst are good topics to be grounded out in the field. Specs and breakdowns are reserved for the second half, but kept concise and to the point.
Chris "The Model" Niccolls, I can not thank you enough for divulging the detailed information about the so called "new sensor" and bit depth of the GFX 100ii's various shooting modes. I knew that was the same old sensor with a possible slightly different algorithm.
I'm a wedding photographer I shoot with the R3 and R5 but I feel this camera would give you amazing images over the FF I'm looking at buying the Canon R5ii and the New RF 35 1.2 or 1.4?? next year. But instead maybe look at getting the Fuji 100 ii I feel MF will make a run at FF for some high end weddings and portraits photographers in the next couple of years. And with the Fuji film simulations help to produce incredible images. Especially with the new Reala Ace. MF prices are dropping. I bought my first FF the Canon 1DS and paid $11.400 Canadian which was a 11.1MP For me personally I'd still keep my R3 and R5 sell off some of my gear. Purchase the 100ii and get 2 lenses 55 1.7 and the 110 2.0 sell my RF50 1.2 and the RF 85 1.2 which would match the same 2 RF lenses. I'd have my wide RF lenses RF 28-70 to cover mid range and 3 longer lenses to cover that end. Then I could use MF for the special photos and FF for reception and ceremony. We all don't drive the same car or truck for personal reasons. But for some photographers I feel this camera would be amazing :) We are so fortunate to have so many options and choices for photography and video today. That's what is so exciting about what we do. I've been a full time studio and wedding photographer dating back to the 80's and find photography today even more exciting. Just need to find the best system for you.
Come on. Wedding photography? Let's be serious a minute. What print size your married couples are ordering you? Do they even order that many prints to begin with? This camera is utterly pointless for a wedding photograher.
haha It's not the print size that I'm concerned with but there is magic in shooting with MF that you don't get with FF 50% of what we buy and use is for us. It's the enjoyment we get shooting with our gear. “Most wedding photographers burn out in 10-15 years. I have been a wedding photographer for 40 years. Still very good at it and enjoy it more today than ever. I started with Hasselblad Film when I got into the business when I was 20 years old. For my last 5 years would love to own MF to end my career. How many wedding photographers can say after 40 years. They still LOVE to photograph them. I've always had the best gear to work with. I also market my self with our clients we use the best!!! That also helps to sell our services. If we are to work in our industry. We need to also enjoy it.
I bought this as my first MF with my R5's still in my kit as well. I hate my R5 now. The images this camera produces are absolutely beautiful and it's a joy to use after getting use to controls/menu.
If you did a side by side comparison, shooting the same subject, same lighting etc., edited both and then output as jpg files at a resolution suitable for on-screen usage (say, 4000 pixels wide), would the average person be able to see any difference? Or is it mainly just when looking at the RAW files zoomed in at 100%, printing huge and when manipulating the files in post that the differences become apparent?
@@mdhazeldine This are great questions. I think you know the answer to the first which is why you phrased it the way you did. If you take an average image and strictly controlled everything qith the intent of being able to make them look identical, you're right. The typical viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between most cameras. If you make the scene more challenging, and you could argue most normal environments are, then things like the dynamic range and resolution, color and other things become apparent in the final image unless you intentionally degrade it. Editing there is not comparison. Having the extra image information and it being higher quality has been great. The files aren't anymore of a strain to work with than my R5 raws. I also have realistic expectations of it since it is a MF. It's weird in some instances for folks to think that there should be equivalent AF performance for example without giving something up.
@@mdhazeldine You wont tell the difference, even if you used a micro four thirds camera versus this medium format except in print and poor light situations. But then again no camera will save you during poor lighting except a super fast prime and any light whatsoever.
The GFX 100 II didn't produce much better image quality than my R5. Pixel peeped the same subjects taken outside local camera shop using GF 55mm 1.7 and RF 50mm 1.2 in JPG on an 8k monitor and saw very little difference. It stopped me from buying.
@@chairminh I find that hard to believe. I primarily use the 50 1.2 RF on the RF and 55 1.7 on the GFX 100 II. The DR and detail difference is definitely noticeable when editing.
The main reason GFX100 II is an intriguing camera is the possibility for trickle down. The end game might be very near for my use case. Combine the X-S20 batterie, IBIS and sensor with GFX100 II software in x-pro Camera Body all my GAS will be gone.
Came running to find the pedant comment thread about this. Good to be among my people 😂 that’s one of those slip ups that makes me crazy, like cement and concrete.
Such a great camera release. I hope the lens lineup gets some care, mainly in the looks. Would be really nice if there were more really wide fstop lens options. Stuff that rivals f1.4 FF lenses.
Indeed, there is the GF 55mm f1.7, 80mm f1.7, and the 110mm f2. The 110mm is in my opinion one of the best lenses ever made, the rendering is spectacular combined with the 102 megapixel sensor.
@@Juventinostechnically not a fact . If the 110 can dissolve all 100mp of the gfx100ii , then it means you only need to dissolve the 26mp sensor in the old 26mpx sensor since its the same density ( and sensor origin, just without the xtrans ). Factually speaking , anything that can resolve lumix' GH6 and G9ii is way more impressive since its pixel density dictates it equal to a 165mpx medium format (0,8x). On another note , any lens that can resolve a pixel density similar to nikon 1 j5 would have to resolve 252mp in equiv 0.8 mf format.
@@KNAPPAID ok mate go shoot with nikon 1 j5 or whatever i m sure you'll be very happy. us mortals who shoot hasselblad H system and fuji gfx will have to make do with the 110mm f2 as being the best lens.
Thanks guys for this review. I am not someone who needs or wants a medium format camera. I am not in their demographic. It is exciting to see all the effort Fuji has put into this beast of a body. My takeaway is next year, when Fuji announces new bodies, there is going to be a new film simulation for me to use. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
I completely disagree. If you want to do high quality video, get a proper video camera. If you want the best camera for portraits and landscapes, buy a well loved Nikon D750 for its dynamic range and image quality. The output will be superior than any hybrid camera on the market including the new Sony. If you want the absolute best portrait camera regardless of cost, then mate a Lumix S1 or Leica SL2 with a Summilux-M 5 75 f1.4. As Australias most successful portrait photographer sums it up, Sony is just a small colour photocopier for the flat and characterless images it takes.
New Sensor that ends up being exactly the same one as before, 12 bit Files being sold as 14 bit, 8K video that actually with a bigger crop than the size of full frame and the list goes on and on.. FujiFilm has Entered with a bang into the same style of BS that all other brands have been on for a long time, and to me that's disappointing because they used to be a different kind of company. Garbage in garbage out.
Jordan, even though you say the GFX 100 II can't be a Prime Video camera, the GFX is the most cinematic when you look at your interior footage shot on the same set. Including the A9 III. The only 10-bit result is the most disappointing. If it had internal RAW 12bit like Canon, I would have bought it for video.
Fuji looks dramatically contrast and moody with dark shallow and Hasselblad looks closer to real life with Scandinavian haze look, you guys think the same?
The only thing holding back even the worse of m43 and lumix in general was AF. Eveyrtime i list af as a downside , even the worst of amateurs will wince.
another thing that fuji is doing right and never advertise is colour science. The 100ii has a very good, maybe even close to HNCS now. And they just don't mention it much..
Yes… the optics of GF lenses is mind-bending, when you get to shoot them yourself and see. Both rhetorical GFX50R, and GFX100S are amazing though - i enjoy them regularly:)
TL;DR - get a GFX 100S now that it’s become so cheap. This new release really puzzles me, because the marketing BS is not OK, especially at this very high price level. Most of the people in the market for a $7,500 camera know what the hell they’re talking about. You can pull a fast one at the very low end (maybe, just ask Canon when they decided to remove the center pin of the hot shoe), but at the top you need to be 100% straight with your customers. I suspect that this marketing faux pas will hurt Fuji quite a bit.
you forgot to mention that it is stunning as a landscape camera with excellent dynamic range. I think that is what you are going to use this camera for, that and studio shooting.
Yep. These RU-vid channels never showcase the benefits of MF and its superior image quality. They take lame photos that would look good even with an M43 sensor camera. Would be nice to let a pro landscape or portrait shooter use it for the reviews.
@@michaelbell75Would love Andy Mumford to review this. He takes great landscapes, the best for me. Gerald should review the DR and noise profiles. He is too Sony indebted though.
I agree. They tested it for modes of shooting (stills of action, portraiture, and video) for which MF is either not suited or that is done as well or better by smaller formats, and seem to have intentionally avoided testing it in those types of photography in which MF cameras are meant to shine. If I had one, I'd use it in manual focus most of the time, and don't really care who well it track in AF. If I want to shoot wildlife or sports, I'd use by A7RIV. (And I have so little interest in video that I've never used my Sony to shoot video. I also know little about video, yet found Jordan's review well-informed - as usual - but predictable. Why would anyone use this camera for video, unless it was to video the sudden appearance of Sasquatch while shooting landscape photos?)
One point... when reviewing.. why state the CIPA rating but not what you guys actually got out of it? We wanna hear what people get out of it not just the spec sheet stats... I get at least 700 shots per battery for example. Maybe these guys don't shoot that much with the gear...
Very impressive still performance. But maybe you wanna check the capabilities this camera can offer in terms of landscape photography. Would be cool to see the capabilities of the censor, especially medium format. In terms of sport photography or fast moving objects in particular, this camera might not shine, but for capturing the scenes on those events, this camera shines the most in my opinion.
Sure but I think we got across that the image quality is only slightly improved over what we’ve seen before and that it is the best mage quality available. The camera is ideal for landscape, but so was the 100 and the 100S.
I've been waiting for someone to publish better lab results for dynamic range in various video modes. It's worth noting (and I don't think it was mentioned in this review) that in some of the full sensor width 4K modes/flog2, there is an option for expanded dynamic range at the cost of rolling shutter. I'm not sure if it's implemented by switching to 14-bit readout or supersampling, though (not sure I've seen anybody say for sure). When I turn it on, the difference in DR is noticeable (I'd guess a bit over a stop more), but I don't have a Xyla 21 or anything like that to check it. Otherwise, fully agreed that it's not the first camera that I'll reach for to do video work, but I'm thrilled with it compared to my original GFX 100. It's a lot more reasonable to throw in a small bag for travel - I carried the II with 32-64/4, 100/2, 23/4, the 63/2.8, and a Minolta 58mm f/1.4 (for very low light stuff) all around Turkey recently and the whole setup fit decently in a 17L Pacsafe bag. My original GFX 100 wouldn't even fit in the bag. The IBIS is enough now that I could hand hold video with the 32-64 (and even somewhat the 110/2) without extremely noticeable jitters. One thing that's kind of cool about the 8K crop mode + anamorphic is that I have some EF mount Laowa Nanomorphs - the 27, 50, and 80mm versions - and because of the APS-H type crop, the 50 and 80 cover perfectly and the 27 _almost_ covers (and with 8K, I don't mind just framing a little wide and punching in a few percent in post). Obviously an actual APS-C camera is a better choice for using them, but it's yet another entry in the category of cool hybrid camera tricks.
Oh, one last thing - I thought I'd give it a try for a short film recently (a 48 hour film fest thing) using the 5.8K scope mode with the Eterna profile in ProRes. Most of the shots were fairly static so RS wasn't a big concern and the quality was/is great. Since it was quick turnaround, I also tried using AF for almost everything - I only had to step in about 10% of the time to manually focus stuff where it was confused (about the same amount as the second camera needed with the R5) - and for close-up stuff with shallow DOF (using the 110/2 and 63/2.8), it was really nice to let the actors just move around spontaneously like a human and watch the AF track their eye a LOT better than I can. For quick turnaround, it was a lot nicer than setting some focus pull points and convincing them to stop moving their head back and forth. 😅
Loved the review, and the camera looks entertaining even if it's way out of my budget. But the traffic noise was somewhere between annoying and unbearable. Other than that please keep up the excellent work!
I was very tempted to buy the camera when it came out and ergonomically it is great, but really the big advantages just don't stack up, in the way that Fujifilm announced. Really for me, it looks like Fujifilm needs a new sensor and processor to run the camera, to really get what Fujifilm was advertising.
Maybe is also tweaking of some expectations is needed . You ain’t gone see much faster sensor or let alone global shutter sensor for that money in any MF camera.
Great review. It seems to me that if you mainly shoot stills and quality is everything, then this is a great camera, but as video is becoming ever more important for pros, I still think full frame sensors are the perfect hybrid size. Big enough for stills quality, but not so big that you end up with compromises in video performance. And I'm not convinced 99% of the general public could tell a medium format camera's output apart from a full frame one in a blind test. The main difference is going to be in post production and the ability to crop hard.
one point, at 8:55 this af symptom is to be expected, these are a lower dof platform, due to sensor size, so the 3.5 or 2.8 aperture is a lot thinner than on a dslr, so 'missing' is to be expected, esp if you do the shot at certain distances ( dof does change with focal length of lens, and focussed distance), so one tip, if you NEED accurate focus, Stop down, to f 5.6 or f 8 and cope with the wider dof, this will ensure the focus is bang on!!, or use a tripod, and focus stack.
No, it wouldn't. This camera will destroy the a7R V in detail and image quality. The same way the A7R V would destroy a M43 camera in every way with its smaller sensor.
Eh. The A7R5 feels very expensive to me, might as well spring for a used A1 in that case. This might be unpopular, but both the R5 and Z8 seem more attractive, even if their AF is slightly worse (they offer better handling and readout speed, which to me are far more important than spec sheet crap). The A7R3, on the other hand, offers killer quality for the price, and has all the right basic bits. And that’s where the comparison gets iffy, because you only get something like 30% more linear resolution on a GFX 100/S/II for a ton of extra cash. Add to that the wealth of inexpensive and good lenses available for E-mount, and the equation is heavily skewed towards Sony.
@@michaelbell75 First of all, with the progress we made over the years with fullframe cameras, no, nobody can use the word "destroy". Those cameras are too close, in the real world at least. Secondly, an image is a lot of things, sensor size is one item sure, but there are plenty others. You have to factor everything. Autofocus, which oddly enough is precisely even more critical when you increase megapixels and which is way more than fps, dynamic range (oops..), lenses, etc. etc. Even the size and weight of the camera enters the equation. To me it feels like fullframe and medium format cameras have never been as close as they are now.
@@Maxime-ho9iv ok, then If sensor size doesn’t matter, we can all use M43 sensor cameras right? M43 has made a ton of advancements, no need for larger sensors right?
Really comprehensive review on stills features, but with all due respect this review COMPLETELY misses the mark in what makes the GFX100 II special for video production. While downsampling from 8K to 4K in full frame cameras is a better way to maintain sharpness and minimize sensor noise... that is NOT why someone would consider this for a production camera. The draw is optics not pixels. This is essentially pocket VistaVision, the focus falloff is the draw not just image sharpness. This is only parallel to the Alexa 65 or Panavision DXL2, but you can hang this around your neck! Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.
FUJI is in wright path, we need only 2 format 1-Super 35 (APSC sensor size)as the historical manner of hollywwod with legendary lenses of 50s-80s 2-We need large format photography(medium in digital era which will be growth to large format in the future)
Yes, because every brand-new tech that so far exists in exactly one 35mm sensor size 24 MP technology demo with unknown dynamic range and limited flash sync wide open must automatically be present in every other product from that day onward. The same way that all cars are now electric because electric cars were available in 1881. /s
There's something about those MF images that just jumps, especially in post where you can really see it. The whole bit depth issue is only an issue if you must shoot 8fps instead of 5 or less, and really only if you don't expose properly. Folks that push files will be shooting in 16-bit single AF or manual anyway
The funny thing is, Fuji's most entry level camera, the X-A7, does have a touch screen menu. It's fully responsive, but I use the nimble little joystick out of habit.
I don't completely agree with the Bit depth With good photo editing software, such as Capture One, you can really see the difference between 14 bit and 16 bit. The color gradient is a bit nicer, I think the colors are a bit fuller. I find this interesting,14-bit files, with no less than 16,385 shades per color channel, or 4 trillion colors. bit depth of 16 bit many more shades of color, namely 65,536 shades per color. So 65,536 shades of red, 65,536 shades of green and 65,536 shades of blue. Top monitor, for example Asus Pro PA32ucg-K, can only handle 10 bits. Could perhaps more attention be paid to this?
What is interesting is that the price of their top model dropped by 25%, and is now USD 7,500. That is still a lot of money, but undeniably medium format is gradually becoming more accessible. I think the focus on video is marketing BS, but it would be very cool to have a real medium format video camera with a full sensor readout in the future. The GF lenses are not great for video either, not even the lenses with linear motors. This is very much a photography-first camera, and for that purpose this sensor absolutely stellar and the camera will benefit from autofocus improvements. As a current GFX100s shooter, I will still enjoy mine for a few years more.
@@SMGJohn I am not sure whether that's the right approach to this camera. There is nothing against owning a GFX100ii as a hobbyist, but this is a tool designed and intended for professional photographers who do studio portraits, fine art and landscape shoots. What this camera offers, used to be the territory of the Hasselblad H6D and Phase One cameras, which are upwards of USD 30,000. The GFX100ii is a quarter of that price, and offers almost the same features, save that GF-lenses don't have leaf shutters. For professional use, USD 7,500 is not that outlandish if this is your daily workhorse camera, which is used as tool to earn money for a photography business. If you're a metal worker, and you need to buy a welding machine, a lathe and some good tools, that would also easily set you back USD 7,500. It's no different, it's just a professional photography tool.
10:50 I have Fuji cameras but probably the only user who’s not wild about the film simulations, but boy the Reala look absolutely lovely and vibrant! 😍
I too have Fuji cameras. Most recently got handed down an X-T30 from Dad when he broke it and didn't want to get it fixed but I did since it was a relatively cheap fix. I'm not crazy about the 35mm film simulations either, but Dad was, which is why we have so much Fuji gear. I'll use the film simulations when it calls for it.
Unless you're pixel peeping at 500% to 1000% zoom NOBODY is going to care or tell the difference between a $1000 and this ridiculously overpriced $7500 camera
Hmm I don't know about the look this video. Everyone here in the comments seems to like it but I think the lighting makes it look kinda fake. In the sense that it feels like you are shooting in a studio and not a real place. Also, what's up with the panny autofocus at 7:54 ?
Thank god you told me about this! The point was the 16 bit DR and now finding out its only 12 when shooting continuous that's not right. Yikes you guys saved me a lot of money!!! I'll keep my 100s
I think we're reaching a point where AF and resolution are in competition with one another. The more pixels you're computing, the slower AF. This is of course less of an issue for stationary subjects.
