I think some people are stuck in the idea of medium format. These days you can see people doing serious photojournalism with digital Hasselblads and Fuji GFXs camera, I know personally great photojournalist who use these systems for their daily day stuff, even covering violent stuff. The idea that MF should something for slow and static applications is an obsolete idea.
I used to work for a bigger pro dealer. The people who bought GFX's, Hassselblads and Leica M's were all... sad older weird nerd men who couldn't find joy in the simple things in life and who spent months talking themselves into needing the biggest most special thing to match their biggest most special lifestyles. NONE of the them ever produced a picture worth a darn. Not all of them were complete D-bags but most had... ahem... "photographer buyer personality." Typically some middle-aged dentist would come in ever 18 months, throw his weight around, buy a GFX... make life difficult for the sale staff because he was hassling them for some lens that wasn't usually stocked and was on perpetual backorder anyway ... and like i said... the kind of person who has grand vacations and absolutely mediocre pictures. The people who were actually getting it done did not buy this ultra high-end stuff.
Sure, MF has historically been for pretty much static subjects only, but has that been because there was simply no system capable of shooting moving subjects? We're at that point now, it sounds like. Who is it for? Well, they're trying to satisfy as many requirements as possible, clearly. Moving subjects, static subjects, super high res landscapes (with multi shot), semi-pro video shooters, you name it. I think it's great to see this much functionality in a MF body and it's truly the beginning of making MF viable for more than static subjects and static subjects only. If my bag fit it and my wallet could bear it, I'd be unbelievably stoked about this new camera. Awesome work by Fuji.
Yeah they're totally aiming at full frame, trying to entice anyone who thought full frame cameras were fast enough several generations ago, and wants better image quality.
Agree completely. I do not understand why anyone would bitch about these added functionalities. I can assure you, loads of professional commercial photographers, myself included, will be upgrading to this new body almost immediately.
Fujifilm makes a camera whose whole point is to challenge what MF can be used for, and you guys are going all "no we just want the old clunky tech"? Seriously? And you're honestly going to overlook the pretty obvious audience that is photographers who want the best image quality, while also being able to get good video specs, all out of one system? If you use MF for your photography, there aren't many options for you to be a hybrid shooter in the same system, this is what this camera essentially is. And sure you're getting 8K video with a crop, who cares? The win is that you don't have to buy an R5 or a Z8 to go with your GFX, and that the GFX system gets to compete in that space and offer a solution with very few compromises (and sure, different tradeoffs) to people who would normally go for say an R5 or a Z8. Also don't forget that this is an evolutionary step. You guys are reacting to this camera like someone would have reacted to the 5Dm2, overlooking the potential of what further innovation will lead to. Chris and Jordan I love you, but come on, you're talking about the degradation in image quality of a camera you haven't tried yet. Maybe hold that thought until you've done the tests and can show the results...
Well we were split on how we felt about it and not all against it, and we are only going to be expressing our thoughts based on what we know. You know that we will take a solid look at it. I have a feeling that many of our worries will come to pass though.
The original GFX100 had a recommended price of USD$10,000. This new GFX100 II has it at USD7,500 -- a whopping 25% cheaper (not more!!) and that's with part shortages and notable inflation that can't be ignored. It seems to be designed beautifully & functionally, more portable, and is much more capable. 8 stops IBIS in large sensor. We all know about GFX100 stills quality, thus the X Summit announcement emphasized its medium format video improvements to backup those stills. It's just saying, hey, the video is now capable. Sure it may not be the video camera for sports or action, but for fashion, weddings, architecture, landscape, gardens, still life surveying pans etc, you can do it with a flick of switch with the quality lens you have attached and with the ultra camera that's already in your hands. Why the poo poo miserable outlook? Surely that's a misfiring and missing the point? Man, you all should have gone to the X Summit instead for a happy mood!
To answer the question who’s this camera for: As someone who uses the GFX line this is a hugely welcome change. I shoot more field portrait work, travel, on site brand work, weddings, etc than I do in studio stuff. My issue is that I always have to have my entire Sony line up as a backup when I need a bit more speed or video with reliable AF. With this update if I can sell all my other sony gear, I’ll be able to streamline my workflow dramatically and actually come out with money to spare. Why not just shoot Sony? There is a noticeable difference between GFX and FF that is usually boiled down to “it’s viewed on social media, nobody can see the difference” but my clients open the files on their large screens before posting and if they are happy they keep hiring me, that’s worth something. At the end of the day all cameras these days are truly amazing, pick something that instills joy or confidence in your work whatever that may be.
It looked great and felt great in hand at the event yesterday. I think it’s going to gain a new audience with people who wanted faster medium format, but I think it will be another couple of generations of GFX until they are truly speed machines. I don’t need the speed, but I unfortunately need a roof over my head and food on the table, so no GFX for me just yet.
I can't believe you're already trying to judge a camera you haven't tried. You may not be wasting YOUR time, but I do hope you won't waste ours like this again anytime soon.
A person could daily drive a Lamborghini, or they could daily a turbocharged Honda Fit Sport. Both would be driven at the speed limit, both would reach the speed limit faster than 99% of drivers would ever need. Accessories, repairs, and overall expense for the Lambo is going to astronomically higher than the Honda. Both achieve the same effective output at the end of the day, if you have the money to waste on what amounts to a flex at the end of the day, more power to you. The same logic applies to cameras, 90% or more of non-professionals could use an APS-C or MFT camera with solid lenses and notice next to no effective difference between that and the near 10,000 USD kit for a GFX setup (I had a GFX 50R and kit, sold it because it was ultimately pointless, I got more use out of my Pentax KP/K-1.II and MFT kit for work, so the money back to reinvest was better spent for me) when their images are being viewed in a web browser, most of the time on a phone.
@@StrangelyIronic Pick the right tool for the job. If you're the one buying into GFX because you're curious or you want to flex, go for it. There are still plenty of valid non-flex reasons to shoot GFX/100mp/MF. The fact that you went from MF to MFT shows that your shooting did not require large sensors/large pixels/high resolution. Just because it didn't make sense for you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for others. The added AF and readout capabilities just means this camera can make sense for more shooters.
@@StrangelyIronic don't get me wrong, I still shoot with an X-T3. this camera is clearly not for me. but why shouldn't fuji continually try to improve their cameras? Jaron seems almost offended that Fuji increased the fps and autofocus in the GFX100 II because it's not needed for studio portraits, landscapes, etc. But again, why shouldn't the camera's continue to improve and open up new possibilities. I'm still going to be shooting fuji aps-c because thats what works for me within my budget. but the negativity regarding the camera performance improvements is strange to me.
People are using medium format cameras for studio and landscapes because that's what they are good at now. If the capabilities have increased, they can be used for other things too. "No one is using medium format for street photography, so no one is going to" is such a dumb take.
i'd love to see it being viable to everyday shooting, but medium format is a big system. with a short flange back with mirrorless cameras we'll have smaller, shorter length lenses better for walking around but street is long grueling hours beating the street. its a lot of effort to get the shot let alone have a camera that can do it. give the workflow some thought and you might find a new style, but medium format doesn't sell itself as the street photographers dream
Right. . Its alittle “dumb” to say that. Thing is… As long not against the law and anyone can afford and willing and comfortable to do it. Then. Why not. Go ahead. Nobody can stop you. Lol.
I shot with Canon for YEARS and switched to the GFX 100S as my primary camera for my portrait work (in-studio 50% of the time) because I wanted the higher resolution. But the autofocus misses focus THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME! I'm finding that I have to toss 2/3 of my images from each shoot because they don't have the tack sharp focus that I demand for my professional work. If I force myself to slow down a bit more when shooting, then it gets a LITTLE better, but it doesn't always find the eye and sometimes will just focus on the background instead. So frustrating!!! If the 100 II has better autofocus, I probably have no choice but to upgrade to it. There aren't many scenarios where I need to shoot faster than the camera will allow...but they do occasionally happen, so it'll be great to have that capability too (although 8fps is only for a max of 3 seconds, or 24 shots, according to the specs sheet...probably due to the buffer size???)
“Medium format is for product photography, in-studio portraits and landscapes” ok but it was only for those types of photography because it was so slow in the past. There was no other choice- you simply couldn’t shoot action of any sort. This camera is for those who want the benefits of MF and don’t just want to shoot the aforementioned styles of photography
Well that was deflating. I’ve been really excited for this new camera. And you guys just vaporized it! I hope when you get a full production example in for testing, it proves to be better than you expected.
Their insistence that there’s a direct correlation between dynamic range and readout speed makes about as much sense as the ideal that dynamic range and pixel size are directly correlated- which they made a great video debunking for DPR. The Venice and Burano sensors are mighty quick and have fantastic DR, let’s wait and see what this Sony sensor offers in production models
I’m already seeing the 100s on the used market for $3500. While I was an early adopter, I see portrait photogs, especially studio photogs, possibly moving this way because the barrier to entry (price) isn’t a huge barrier anymore
!!! FIRS---damnit... I'm really waiting for the R. Loved my GFX50R when I had it for a while. And faster lenses... really need faster glass to take advantage of that BIiIG sensor
I disagree. I use the GFX100s for street... and the autofcus/eyedetect/tracking is such a huge huge improvement. Eye detect was an absolute pleasure. That's about it.
I left a similar comment on the podcast. As a professional photographer a camera is a workhorse, and for what I do this is the camera for me. I bought the GFX100 on release four years ago and I consider the body fully depreciated and it’s time to refresh. My focus is stills, and I love the way the GFX100 shines for landscapes, portrait and fashion. I don’t do video at all, and as such I’d be happy if Fujifilm took the Hasselblad route of only doing a stills MF camera. But that said it’s no big deal for me to have the video stuff added. I just won’t use it. Where I have found the gFX100 lacking is speed. So the effort to increase speed and improve the AF is very welcome. And I’m particularly delighted to see a GF500 on the roadmap. I’ve done a number of wildlife commissions in Africa using the 100 + 250 combo and while the images are great it’s just not fast enough or long enough to really shine (and yes I know it’s a poor choice for wildlife). So all in all I’m a happy chap. I just hope I can get my hands on one before they sell out!
Just because Medium format isn't for street in the past doesn't mean Fujifilm cannot innovate and make it so that it can today. Fujifilm seems to be positioning the GFX range as better image quality of a bigger sensor that Full frame while bringing the performance difference between full frame and medium down. If Fujifilm can make it so that medium format has more use cases, why not street, why not at some distant point (assuming further gens improve) wildlife or sports? If Fujifilm adds these features to the GFX50... surely that will be serious competitor for some photographers money who would by Full Frame over APS-C because image quality. Fujifilm will never come to full frame because there is nothing really innovative for it to bring to gain a slice of that pie. However, if it can bring Medium format close enough to full frame performance.... then it has a lovely little unique selling point over Sony, Canon, Nikon etc This is a serious closure of that gap and you can't innovate without pushing a few boundaries.
Totally agree. As technology advances, Fuji’s medium format will undoubtedly become faster and faster. In its current state, it would be fantastic for street photography. The form factor combined with the right lens could do some amazing things on the street. A lot more versatility in cropping.
they cannot just simply add these features to the GFX50, some features are really down to the foundation and design of the CMOS sensor. Fuji cannot implement the same thing unless Sony upgrade the sensor that they put on the GFX50.
I do a lot of handheld low-angle garden scape work and the GFX100 has some features that make it really useful for my purposes such as the tiltable viewfinder, improved IBIS, high-res viewfinder and enhanced MF aids. I’m mentioning this because it seems people are fixated on its better AF performance but there are many more features to this camera that make it highly compelling for a variety of use cases besides portrait and landscape shooting.
Switched from X system to GFX50R for mostly outdoor portrait. The autofocus accuracy and speed are absolute nightmare and frustrating, but the results are just too fantastic that I can't go back to work professionally with the X system. That being said, I kept holding myself to upgrade my GFX until they release a new sensor. If the accuracy and speed of the AF can keep up with the likes of xh2 then this might be the perfect camera for me. Also, having 2 kidneys are overrated anyway...
Right. I'm not sure why the other guy thinks Medium format should be slow way of using it. If the new gfx has better af and readout speeds well heck might as well use it as an event photography that runs and gun. Why limit the capabilities of having a medium format with faster af and readout speeds.
I was invited by Fujifilm Malaysia to make a video on it yesterday. My thoughts its a beast yet not as beast compared to the previous model. What you guys fail to mention is its 16bit DR and thats why pro's or other photographers use MF. Who's it for ? My thoughts as a commercial photographer guys like me. $7500 is cheap for what this camera can do. And it comes with $1500 worth of free goodies if you pre order now.
8fps for landscapes isn't totally useless. I've used bursts like that to capture moving elements within the frame, like birds & boats. It's definitely niche but would be handy for those instances
I don’t see the reticence towards having what is probably the first medium format camera ever made with good tracking autofocus. I don’t need such a camera at all, and I prefer the Leica S line of digital medium format lenses, but this is still a cool and interesting camera.
I'm still waiting for GFX format to have better looking and more functional lenses. Like we see with the sigma and Sony lenses with extra buttons and options that make use of the extra size of the lenses. I think fuji isn't adding enough physical options to the GFX/bodies lineup like they do for the XF lineup/bodies.
Exactly! At this point in time, medium format (especially in terms of video) is more of a promise than the real deal and it's hard to invest so much money in a system that has a pretty mediocre selection of available lenses.
Fuji is a baffling brand. They come out with a camera very few people need, let alone want, while discontinuing the extremely popular X-100V, slightly less popular X-E4, and the X-Pro3 and making zero announcements regarding updates or pending new models of any of those.
I use it for Architecture, Interiors & Cityscapes professionally. And now there are two Tilt-shift lenses, 30mm and 110mm. Fellow Photographers of mine use it for Street, Weddings, Reportage, and even sports like breakdance, BMX, skateboarding .... Side note: For an Art film project the GFX 100S was in use in the last few month with PL-mount cine lenses with great results. Now, the GFX 100 II offers SSD-recording via USB-C, VistaVision and e.g. [8K(17:9)] or [8K(2.76:1)], high bit rates, etc. .... I would recommend going through a full production and then (!) reporting about the experiences while shooting and showing some results.... PS.: Side note: if you start spending a few k for renting or you can buy a cine-specs camera for 8k and use it in addition for highest-quality Fine Art Photography .... you decide :-)
Totally separate comment from my previous: I attended the Fujifilm Create With Us conference in Seattle a few weeks ago and it seemed like the ENTIRE FOCUS was on video! They were showing off their cinema lenses, vendors featured LED lighting for video, even the guest speakers and interviews were all videographers who used Fuji gear to do documentaries and stuff (including the videographer for The Marvelous Ms Mazel, which was really cool, actually!) So it seems like they really want to try to move the public's perception of their products into more and move of the video side of things instead of just stills. So it makes sense (in my mind) that they pack as much video functionality as they can into this new GFX 100 II body. It totally tracks with what I saw at their conference.
Let's use a bit of imagination and see what the next (cone only) GFX camera could offer? My wish list: 'box style body', V-mount, SDI, side (or top) monitor), internal cooling optimised for 4:4:4, combine all that with a cage-PL-uni-solution. Wow ..... This one is the beginning .....
2 words: Wedding photography! Probably the type of photography that brings in the most money in the industry. 100mp quality, medium format look, acceptable burst rate, low light capability and now usable video capability to boot. Wedding photogrpahers are going to eat this thing up in my opinion.
This is absolutely and completely pointless for a wedding photographer. A wedding photographer never prints big. This camera is for someone who prints 60"x40" at breakfast. Most wedding images will never be printed and nobody wants 100MP digital files for his wedding. And when it's printed, the biggest size a wedding image will be printed at is for a wedding book. It is beyond useless to have a 100MP to print a wedding book, come on. You really don't even 50MP so 100MP? Really? A wedding photographer wants small, light (including lens) and decently fast (by fast, I do not only mean relatively quick, the whole end-to-end experience needs to be fast). Also, this doesn't look like to be financially sound. You can do the exact same job for way less, and nobody, absolutely nobody will notice the difference.
@@Dexxter_slav bro, I had tried download MKBHD sample photos. 100MP is great, MF look is there, hugeee and ultimate perspective. And there it is, yeah, 400-600MB per files, f uck it hahaha.
I bought the GFX 50s for fashion work. And it’s great image quality but the autofocus really isn’t as good as i would like. Literally the only issue i have, so I’m glad this is coming out. Just wished the price wasnt so high. So maybe this will be worth it when the gfx 3 comes out 😅
I had no idea that faster sensor meant lower IQ. I just thought it just meant that the image processor was beefy enough to push through that data quicker. Is this true for FF/Crop/MFT sensors, or just Medium Format?
The new GH6 with it's fast readout has poor dynamic range at low ISO compared to other current MFT cameras, so I'd say there's a solid chance it applies at all sensor sizes.
It's a generalization, I believe - sometimes to get faster sensor readout, the camera will skip lines or bin pixels on the sensor, which results in a softer image. This is more commonly talked about for video. As well, to keep the overall bandwidth requirements manageable, the sensor might read out in 12 bit instead of 14 bit, which results in lower DR because there is less color information. Canon does this for the high ES burst rates on the R5 for example, whereas EFCS and MS are 14 bit (unless high burst EFCS in which case it's 13 bit).
How big would a 500mm f/4 medium-format telephoto be? And considering the 0.8 crop factor, many people might want something longer than that! Edit: I see Fuji is introducing a 500 f/5.6. I'm very curious to see how good it is, and how large it is.
depends on the type of photo. you want as much detail as you can in a landscape photo but you can print billboards of models with an iphone because no one wants to inspect skin pores. but i won't say no to high res cat photos
It's for FF Pros who do slow stuff, and want a jump in quality. And I think it will take a small bite out of that market. The video stuff is a stepping stone for future cameras which might really make inroads into the FF market. I suspect at the moment, it is a red herring.
I think medium format is fine for a lot of stuff, but I think the most persistent and troublesome tradeoff will always be the size of the body and lenses. The other stuff will probably get better over time, but the size is a defining attribute and dictates the size of the lenses as well.
The gfx series has always been a game changer for MF cams. It reveals the potential of MF doing things where traditionally only FF or APSC is good at. Yet the video capability of the 100 II is like the first fish that habitats on land, having to take one or two gens to evolve. Photo shooting wise, the improvements are significant enough. But as we all know, Fuji needs a story to sell and it has to be video capabilities.
I shot softball with a Mamiya C330 many years ago. It required different skills than using my EOS 630, but I don't recall any way it was better. I did it to find out. I do not understand the "medium format look," or how photographs could possibly look different or even better. Can someone, slowly, carefully explain?
Could this camera perform well for the dual focus of progressional landscape and wildlife photography? And could these video improvements/ quality make it viable option to vlogging RU-vid and social media. ? That would be my intended use. Thanks
Based on the pricing I can probably rent one for a week for the same price an Alexa LF mini will cost me for a day and the 65 has never been in budget. If it matches the video feature set and recording capability of an XH2S and I'm directing a job where I want that background separation I would definitely consider it. But I'll need it to roll all day without overheating or stopping. I kind of doubt it will.
I think it's an important middle ground camera that has to exist in order for the true ground breaking camera to see the light of day. I would like to see the next version have a stacked 50mp sensor with a dual X-processor 5. Without a doubt, it would shatter the current expectation people have (in reference to Digital Medium format Cameras).
My 50s admittedly is slow, video capability would be nice as well. But equally for $7500 I can also get a lightly used R5C or Komodo, and a 50sii. It’s a good argument and a tough call. I’d love an all in one package, but feels like comprise still
It is a "medium format" camera for photography. Video isn't the camera's main purpose. The video abilities have improved and so Fuji is making this a change a benefit for customers to take note of. But it isn't the camera's main purpose. In short, you're complaining about a secondary feature.
Technically it’s about 35 megapixel for full 8192x4320 8K DCI, so really all you would “need” is about 37 megapixels open gate for 8K recording. Not sure where he’s getting 42 from precisely.
But an 8k TV has 99.5 million dots, because each pixel is all three colors, vs just one color as with cameras. The way camera companies count is screwy.
The GFX100S is down to $5,200 at B&H now. The FX100 II is $2,200 more. Given the comments in this podcast that at higher ISO the image of the 100s "might" be a bit better (I have my doubts) why not go with the less expensive option? I'm not shooting sports. Just landscapes and some street. I think the GFX100S is a bit of a bargain right now.
We're reaching a point where 35mm digital sensors cannot be a higher resolution than 80mp. Not forgetting that in order to be on par with a 35mm film negative you need 87mp.
At the end of the day this camera is made for a professional space with an experienced photographer working with a sizable budget. Furthermore Fuji is not a video camera whereas Canon and Sony are made for video. The joy of these cameras is slowing down and enjoying the process.
I really thought they would release a few 35mm lenses alongside this body, covering the traditional trinity range for FF cameras. It's a 61MP camera in 35mm crop mode. Odd that they're going after video, but not full frame photography.
I don't understand the way you think on "which camera for which use". You say "Who wants an MF camera for...?". MF cameras haven't been used in sport or wildlife not because they are MF, but because their AF and fsp have been super slow so far. Now... Give me a fast AF and bursts MF camera and I'll want to use it instead of my 24x36 system !! So, to me, this new Fuji 100s II breaks grounds in becoming the first very portable MF camera that can do (very near) as well as a traditional camera in all fields. And it won't be much bigger than, say, a D850 or a Z8 or an R5.
I want a new 100MP MF camera for stills at a reasonable price. This camera is for me. We're at the point where those that purchased the last generation of Canon and Nikon DSLRs are looking to upgrade. This camera is for them. Since you're ultimately going to want to upgrade your entire kit to get the most out of mirrorless, may as well pay the slight premium to upgrade to medium format. Or, if you're looking at the Sony bodies, a *discount*. Besides, for us Canon folk, they haven't even released a top end model yet, and it will almost certainly cost about the same as the GFX 100 II. As for the video features... you know how Pentax threw a MF sensor on top of the K3's electronics and gave us the 645D? All the work Fujifilm has put into their other camera lines is paying off here. They spent many millions of dollars on R&D to develop the IP that went into the ASICs on the smaller cameras and their video cameras. Why would they not roll that out to the MF line, especially if they can give you all the features and sell it for 25% less and still make a profit on the camera? I thought I would never use the video features on my Canon 1Dx II, and for the most part I don't, but for the two times I used it, the feature was nice to have.
I used a Fuji 50s which I liked very much and upgraded to a 100 when it launched in 2019. That was not as good. Now I use a Phase IQ4. I really don’t need speed, or video, or in body stabilization, but quality. And if I need a camera for an event or nature or sports I would use a Z9. I believe this is aimed at wedding photographers, which Fuji has been after for quite some time, and possibly it fits the needs of the professionals on that niche.
The most exciting features that I wish were on my 100s would be the new sloping top panel and the higher res viewfinder. Future wishes: more stability- I find it a little glitchy compared to my D850. Fuji’s tethering software is close to being good, but has some dumb quirks. -I would really love a flip out screen that articulated to the left (for tripod work when shooting spaces where the camera is backed close to the wall and I can only stand to the left of my camera-happens all the time) And a 14mm equivalent lens would be super.
To me it looks like they've made a really good tool for those who do mainly landscape but want the capability to do some wildlife (when the 500mm come out) and some video. It will of course do a lot of other stuff well too even if it's overkill. But if you own a GFX 100 II it'll be nice to not need another system to do more mundane photography.
"Who is a fast medium format camera for" is an odd question and I don't get it. I can rephrase: "Who is a fast full frame camera for (when we have fast APSC)". At the end of the day, what matters is image quality. And bigger sensor = better quality. When we have medium format camera capable of shooting sports/action or video, the real question is "WHY NOT??". Medium format folks have not be shooting sports or widelife because they couldn't, not because they didn't want to.
GFX 100 II wish list - better autofocus (has) - better, higher rez EVF/back screen (has a better EVF) - fresher design (has) - clickier buttons (?)- updated top display (has) - improved dynamic range to >15 stop (unknown) - better IBIS (has?) - internal storage, or at minimum one CFexpress card slot, preferably two (has one). Missing from that wish list? VIDEO. It doesn’t bother me that it does video, but that wouldn’t be anywhere on my list of priorities for considering this camera. Pure image quality is priority one. I’d want the outright image quality to equal, or exceed that of the more expensive Hasselblad X2D 100C system and of course, output better image quality than its predecessors. I agree with Jordan, who wants medium formats for video? There are better, less expensive cameras for that. Medium format is all about the best possible stills image quality. I hope this new GFX brings that to the table along with all its highly touted video features.
You’re looking at this the wrong way. Fujifilm need this camera to be competitive for at least four years, maybe more, and thus they went all out in the design and implementation phases to make a killer body. The specs may seem weird or unnecessary, but the company was thinking of 2027 for it. This should surpass whatever Hasselblad are planning for an X3D and beyond.
I have the Fuji GFX 100 and I want the new Focusing if I need it, and better DR and better IBIS and If I want to shoot a Video that button is right there in front, I cant wait to try it in 3 weeks when it gets here
Who is this for? For anyone with the money and the desire to carry a bigger camera for better image quality! I can't wait to get one and try it for everything except video! Even street daily photography! With those amazing colors and low light performance. DAMN! The only downsides IMO are the price and size. And forget the video on these, as very well pointed out, there are better tools for the job even tho they can do it too. We need to stop limiting people. People still use FILM today because they love it and they have their reasons. Why not Large Format? Full Frame? APS-C? Let people have nice things and be happy! They all have their pros and cons. People should use whatever they want and just enjoy! Not everything needs to be a question of bang for buck or sensible choice or even to make sense.
hey if i can afford it, a higher burst and af is gonna make it my street photography/event photography camera. Medium format shouldn't just be a landscape portrait product photography rig.
Pros who are currently shooting product/portraiture/architecture on medium format are used to the idea of a $7500 camera body, but have no use for the speed. Those who have use for the speed are typically buying camera bodies for FAR less than $7500 apiece. So yeah...who is this for?
I mean, medium format will always be 5 years behind full frame but every improvement is always welcome if it comes with no real compromise, price has even lowered so why complain?
« I have included the 4×5 work in my repertoire since 2004, when I started shooting on the political campaigns for President. After 35 years of following politics, the “look” which I was getting with the big camera was what appealed to me. In the early digital days, we were all shooting with more or less the same camera body, the same couple of zoom lenses, and the chance to come up with a different “look” was something I found worth the extra work ». David Burnett about his work at London 2012 with a 4x5.
I kept hearing, who is this for? It is for more people. It is for more applications. Fujifilm wants to make this medium format the new high end full frame. Who is shooting medium format video? I would! Why not? Medium format has been used in the past for single frame slow shots because the camera couldn't do better, not because photographers don't want to use medium format for anything else.
It’s more or less a vanity camera. I don’t think you’ll find telling yourself that you need this Camera if you already have the latest Fuji Crop Sensors. 😅 One thing I just learned is photography is all about “light” . A good lighting is always a big part of producing quality photos! And I think that’s cheaper than 8000$ camera.
I'd love to take this camera on the street for both photo and video. Price doesn't make sense for an amateur doing that, but all this talk about "medium format is just for studio" is too much rigid thinking. What do you mean "you don't take video on the street"? Why not?
i think all the cine specific stuff is them moving towards a new standard and not necessarily proof that the camera is super capable at video. the audience is the same audience who bought the others - enthusiasts who love playing around with gear. with time i can see fuji making the medium format camera the choice for an allrounder, because while full frame can use long glass and high frame rates, you don't carry your 400 f2.8 around without a good reason and nobody enjoys having to sort through thousands of photos at the end of a day because you were shooting your kids at 30fps. the bigger problem they have now is the glass needs to focus faster in glass expected to focus quickly. fuji is clearly trying to sell it as a workhorse, but is it robust enough to give full frame flagships a run for their money
"no one is using medium format for sports" Because so far that has been almost impossible due to slow AF and slow burst speeds. For portraits, isnt it also good to get good bursts there? Or?
The new industrial design is amazing, it sets it apart from other manufacturers and their default camera shape, I really hope it finds its way to the more affordable Fuji cameras
I am excited for when GFX can have better hardware and software overall as a direct competition to the FF lineup. It was funny to me when the first GFX launched since it made so much sense. People calling Fujifilm out that their APSC cameras are pushing above their weight but are never going to be FF quality due to the smaller sensor size. Then Fujifilm shows up with a larger sensor than FF. Now its just a waiting game for price and hardware to become equivalent to current FF offerings. Considering how affordable Canons cheapest FF camera is, there will still be competition for price to performance. But for those that want that bigger sensor quality, GFX is there and seems like its here to stay.
"mediumm format is for shooting products and portraits in the studio and landscapes". Really?? Someone must have forgotten to let Diane Arbus know about this important info!
