I've been a Sony shooter since the initial E-Mount releases and my last upgrade- an A7rIII to an A7rV sent me scrambling for alternatives. I don't know what happened but I really disliked what was happening with the images I was making with it. I don't think the way I shoot changed, but whatever happened between the rIII and the rV really changed my perspective. I bought some older FujiFilm models- X-E2, X-Pro1 & 2, X-T20... to try and find some photographic magic with the best in the biz in terms of color science and SOOC JPEGs (something I was keen to try, and never would have considered with Sony). Of that initial batch the X-Pro2 won. I then tried the Ricoh GRIIIx for ultimate portability and... another win in my book. Amazing sensor, great color science. Body is difficult to use but that's to be expected. Trekking back down the Fuji path I considered getting out of Sony altogether and picked up the X-H2 and the X-S20, both killer cameras for their own reasons, and again, great colors. So then... if I was loving these colors what could Fuji's other line do for me? I noticed the GFX prices were falling rapidly with the release of the 100 II, and managed to snag an insanely good deal on a 100s. I think this camera is a pure home run. (When I nail focus- mostly shoot with Mamiya 645 glass) I'm so so pleased with every image, and I think the work to get the RAWs to where I want is minimal. Beautiful, wonderful camera and sensor. Full frame continued to call, though. Something about a crop sensor when you're used to shooting larger sensors doesn't sit well in the back of the mind- despite actual evidence showing APS-C to be perfectly capable, even at 40MP. Once I learned that the flange distance of the Z system was slightly shallower, and that highly functional E to Z autofocus adapters existed- I had to pounce, and Zf looked to be the way. The adapter is still on the way, but I got the camera with the 40/2 and so far- I love it. Colors, like with the GFX 100s, come really naturally to me, making edits easy and enjoyable. Not to mention- walking around the Zf looking like walking around with a $100 film camera, i.e., not work stealing. It feels much different walking around with a GFX camera. I still don't know what I'm going to do with the Fuji X gear... probably slim that down. I'm going to offload some X lenses, E lenses, and invest in the Techart M mount autofocus adapter, try some of that glass, mount my F lenses to it... and go wild... but I think I'm also going to hit up the Zeiss Batis lenses for E mount to use on Z- since it looks like Zeiss is pretty much out of the game, E was one of the last modern platforms they made great lenses for. A lot of this is GAS, but it's been a really fun (expensive) experiment to see what's really compatible with me, vs. being loyal to any particular brand... and it's really called out how important not only good color science is, but how a camera can make you feel. Nothing about the Sony A7rV made me want to pick it up... but the X-Pro2, Zf, and 100s are a completely different story. Thanks for the video- it's one that both makes sense, and makes no sense, and I think you'll be the only one with this comparison!
Was it just me or did I see better colors on the Nikon on all the photos on this video? The photo shot on Fuji shown at 8:41 is red and blotchy. Not saying the Nikon has better color, but in the photos shown, the Nikon colors are just objectively better.
The ergonomic criticism is getting annoyingly repetitive. It's a retro looking camera based on old Nikon models. If you don't like it don't use it Regarding the quality,the Nikon skin tones,in my opinion,looked better and no client would notice a difference
I only can agree. The skin tones at least of the pregnant woman are way too reddish and I much prefer the Nikon ZF files. Unfortunately the pics are not comparable because they are shot with different settings. Btw the pixel pitch of the ZF is larger than 50R. Having shot with both systems I prefer the DR and higher ISO'S of the ZF. If you don't need the 50mpx for large prints there is not a single reason to prefer the 50R over the ZF - and I am no Nikon fanboy at all.
Eh. As someone who uses old Nikon film cameras, the reason THEY worked is because you have a manual film advance lever that acts as a thumb grip. When film shifted to auto film advance wind that natural thumb grip was lost and so they started adding the front grips to cameras. Doing away with both a front grip and a small rear thumb grip makes no sense for either format, it is just uncomfortable especially when considering the weight. It's a poor design philosophy. They should have simply added a tiny thumb bump just like Fuji has done for years on all of their retro styled cameras. You can get hotshoe thumb grips for the ZF now but that uses up the hot shoe and adds a lot of bulk sticking out the back of it. You can add a small rig grip to the front but it still doesn't feel great and now the cameras loses all of it's compact appeal. The ergonomic criticism is warranted and it's hard to see how Nikon missed such an obvious design solution for this camera.
In my film-only days, I shot 35mm film in Nikon F and Leica M cameras. I shot 6x7 and 6x9cm medium format images in Fuji and Mamiya cameras. In this digital era, I shoot Fuji SLR and mirrorless APS-C digital cameras and am now considering a Fuji GFX medium format digital camera. Image quality, aspect ratio, and lens compatibility are very important factors in my decision-making process. The image quality comparison in your video has been very helpful to me.
Bro how is the lens selection a tie?? Nikon Z mount has tele zooms: (100-400, 180-600), tele primes (2x 400, 600, 800) lens selection blows Fuji out of the water… not even close.
Aren't you fed up with videos comparing pixel by pixel different shots, as if the reason of a great picture was the sensor ? Especially when pictures are taken with different lenses. I can't understand photographers who focus that much on gear and not on emotion.
Thanks great video. I'm sure the audio was better on the second go anyways ;) I'm a GFX user that wants to love the Zf, and the camera IS amazing.. Its the camera I wanted Nikon to make since the dawn of Digital. But for me, the Nikon lens lineup is uninspiring... What I would like, is small tank-like-build lenses like the X-mount series or Nikons old Ais series.. I know I can use an adaptor. but the, it adds size in an unbalanced way.
The lens selection of the z mount is limited, but apparently the Megadap E to Z adapter works brilliantly for using native Sony lenses on the ZF with good AF performance. I’m not fully convinced, but it is an interesting prospect to consider.
I have a Fuji GFX50R but going to try the Nikon and possibly swtich back (I used to be a Nikon film shooter). The Fuji has lovely image quality, but the AF misses a lot (both in manual as well as auto) and the amount of noise in high-contrast, low light photos makes too many pictures unusable. The weight is also a problem with the massive lenses, if you have to carry them around. I like analog dials so that is why I gravitated towards Fuji and really glad Nikon has made the Zf. If they ever make a Zf+ with 50MP, I would be in heaven.
Feel your pain on the need to rerecord due to audio issues. LOL! Was out on the street shooting the other day and started to record a performance, grabbed the mic out of the bag, mounted connected, pressed the power button to turn on the mic and began recording. After a few clips, I put my glasses on to adjust the ISO and noticed the meters weren't moving, crap Mic was not turned on. So bummed.
Colours from the Nikon in your pictures look much better to me. I don’t have a Nikon but from my experience with rangefinders and the old FM2 I’d recommend holding the camera with your left hand, not your right. That’s how you hold all old cameras without grips (all 35mm cameras before mid 80’s).
I noticed just from watch some of the landscape photographers medium format has a better roll off during sunset when the colors are changing because of the higher bitrate and maybe the larger sensor. The sky might be blue, yellow, red and other colors but there are so many different shades of those colors one being bright closer to the sun and other colors being darker away from the sun.
Thanks for this video, the GFX 50R packs a +12 year old sensor : the same as the Pentax 645Z How is it possible that it offers better dynamic range and less noise than the ZF sensor ?
It's 50 megapixels on a medium format which matches the pixel density of a 24 mp full frame sensor. Thats a lot of additional recoverable detail and low read noise. That's why. And if you go higher resolution on full frame then you have much worse pixel density and that sacrifice gives the medium format a better light gathering advantage over 50 megapixel full frame cameras. That's why older medium format cameras can still compete or outclass current gen full frame in terms of image quality. But the lenses are bulky, buying new GFX is expensive, and for 99% of people actually full frame is more than good enough. Hell APS-C is more than good enough for plenty of applications.
@@okyeabuddyguy I do shoot medium format film myself and large format panoramic slides&C41 but for digital, the Z8, DF or even the APSC Quattro H provides extremely nice files. I adapt some Mamiya/Bronica lenses on it and the quality is very good but I always was interested in getting an Hassleblad or Fuji GFX one day but can’t justify the cost. I love the 44x33 aspect ratio though.
@@fthprodphoto-video5357 Yea the Z8 will be very close to the 50r in image quality but the Z8 is superior in all other areas. And with the DF you have a nice retro option. I don't think you are missing much with the 50r. It has great IQ and nice colors but you already have an amazing kit.
Even for candid or stationary portraits, AF speed accuracy is still a deal breaker....why would anybody choose 60 percent over 90 percent? I don't understand this sourgrape logic. As for the Medium Format vs FF comparison, duh....you can't compare them, just as you can't compare APSC vs Full Frame, the bigger sensor will always have the advantage. Now if we're pitting them up against "price", which is fair I guess, Objectively the most expensive Fuji APSC will not match the ZF in terms of speed and features ...... Dollar for Dollar, the ZF beats any existing FUJIFILM in the market today, whether it's apsc or medium format
No debes comparar mangos con aguacates, comparar una cámara de 24 millones de pixeles con un de 50 millones de pixeles y con un sensor mas grande osuna indelicadeza. Debes comparar la GFX100 con la hasselblad, etc y la Zf con las fuji de 26 millones de pixeles, o si quieres con una de 40, com l a Xh2s etc. yo he tenido la GFX100 50s y tengo la z7Ii, ambos rangos dinámicos son excelentes, pero como dices, una cámara como las gfx, no son para rapidez, son para calidad, limpieza del color, gradación etc
Well… easy now. I think you are not giving credit to where the gfx is getting the better image quality and that is the lenses. The sensors are the same. The lenses they make for Nikon nowadays are just way too sharp and boring. The bokeh is basically onion bokeh from cheap aspherical lens element molds while Fuji gfx has to make a bigger lens and in some of their lens designs, the use vintage style spherical elements that don’t make an ugly bokeh and they don’t overdo the coatings that crush shadows and skin tones
Nikon is an optic company first and foremost and continue to excellent lenses. If you want “character” which is just flaws go for the cheaper z lenses like the 40 f2, or go for the high end 1.2 which are sharp but still maintain character and pleasing bokeh.
@@livejames9374 Nikon did a Sony and caked their lenses with coatings and put too many elements. Much better to have a few flaws than a million different grouips and elements that kill the vibrancy of skin tones. I'd happily get the 40mm but I'm with 1970s leica m lenses now. Waited for the ZF but they made it bigger than the DF - a DSLR. Get out.
