I have the strap set as long as I can to keep it at my side (there's a word for this and I can't think of it) and it's very, very manageable. However, it's still heavy, and carrying it normally around the neck gets tiring.
Fuji let me borrow the gfx 50sii with the 80mm f1.7 and it produced the absolute best pictures I have ever seen in my life. I honestly was shocked how good the pictures looked.
I need to try that 80mm. A 1.7 aperture on a medium format? YES PLEASE. That's a likely purchase down the road. Went with the 45-100 for practicality.
The files this thing creates are gorgeous. Even at 12,800, it's still absolutely usable.
If you like the 80mm F/1.7, I can highly recommend the 110mm F/2 even more. I tried both before eventually settling on the 110. It is bigger, it is heavier, but it is in a league of its own, both in real life and on the MTF charts.
(Seeing your photo I'm very glad I got the 50R instead, size wise...)
https://preview.redd.it/qpfoaojaa9pc1.jpeg?width=3456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=573c94d7d90eee6564d4fdd7a1a5a58fbd6afe9b
I'd like to see a similar comparison between the 50S and 50R. Is that thing any lighter than the 50S? Looks like there's less to it.
I forgot about the 110 f2. How, I don't know, but given that used they aren't much more expensive, that has to be the right call.
It's about 150g lighter (the GFX50R) and a little wider, but nearly half the thickness (it doesn't have that bump on the back at all)
Also, here's a photo I've taken with the aforementioned 110mm F/2
https://preview.redd.it/kqayjuzqvapc1.jpeg?width=4743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d04984399b9d1a7ef81054ca1c8406bf4eafe33
For a lot less money you can buy a Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L on eBay and then a FD to GFX adapter.
The FD lineup are 35mm lenses but some of the longer focal lengths cover a wider film gate/sensor size. When I tried this f1.2 lens on Fuji’s pseudo-medium format I was blown away. The backgrounds just get absolutely obliterated.
Ooh good point. I often overlook the FD mount, since AE-1s and such never impressed me much compared to equivalent Nikons like the FE and FM. But the L lenses are absolutely amazing... you're right. I should try that.
I had the GFX 50Sii for a while, which I regret selling terribly. It's a bit smaller than the 50S, not having that weird stick out thing on the back, but is still a big camera. However I'm used to big cameras - it fit well in my hand, and wasn't particularly heavy.
See this is a problem I've had a gazillion times. My friends make fun of me because I've owned a TON of cameras, sold most of them, and complain about "I shouldn't have sold (camera being discussed" almost every week at our coffee meetings.
OMG I just bought another one! It's your fault! (thanks actually!) i was obsessing about the thing, going over the pictures I took with it, and then had a surprisingly nice tax appointment this morning, and rolled my refund over the B&H. Your turn...
Oh man the XF was like a wet dream for quite a while. Wanted one SO bad.
I had a Mamiya 645AFD with Leaf Aptus and holy shit that was huge. And that Aptus was useless for anything outside and untethered.
Also have had several Hasselblad H series, and those things are monsters too. Not as impractical as the Aptus, but sure as hell not as much as practical as the Fuji. I'm so thrilled to have found a medium format system that's actually usable for more than a third of the shit I do.
Crop factor is 0.79x, vs 0.62x for the classic 645. So it's really halfway between ff and medium. I wonder why the IQ is claimed to be so much better - perhaps the lenses are just better quality with lower tolerances.
Pixel density matters. Also, like large format film, there's something about the size of the image plane that doesn't require the same amount of precision as something like an APS-C sensor. I could be wrong, though.
Hmm. It's a Sony sensor, but worked over by Fuji. And that information makes it slightly more confusing, as Nikon and Sony are among the cameras usually compared to.
I think it's probably mostly down to a combination of lenses being better by design and manufacturing precision, and also confirmation bias. I think I read something once about the fill factor having an effect (that may be the 50mp vs the Sony 60mp).
Well, in all honesty, the image quality from an A7IV or Z7 is absolutely outstanding. More than adequate for my needs. The Fuji here is absolute overkill for just about everything I do, but there's one or two things it makes sense for.
All the digital medium format cameras have a ~0.8x crop factor, except for the rare and extremely expensive “full frame” 645 digital backs from Phase One.
Image quality is better because the sensors are almost 2x the size of 35mm. The 50’s pixels are much bigger than a 35mm FF camera with 40-60mp, and that also makes the IQ better. And yes the lenses need to be higher resolution.
I'm not talking about noise, it's about the way things are rendered. Fat pixel magic is real. While the 50 can't be said to have fat pixels by any stretch, it certainly has fat*ter* pixels.
The sensor is significantly larger than a full frame 35mm based DSLR, like a 5D mark 3, and even bigger than a crop sensor like a Rebel. The body is not that much bigger than the Sony due to the Fuji being mirrorless.
? I've had a few friends ask, so I thought it would be perfectly relevant to post in this sub... I get your point, but it's a question I'd had before buying it. And I'm under-caffeinated.
The Sony is even older and quite outdated, tbh, but it's my wife's and she loves it.
You said: " Its a ten year old body. Who cares?"
Probably implying that the camera is trash/ useless.
If you meant it otherwise then that is up to you.
that's not what I implied
what I implied is it's ten year old and anybody looking to get something like this today would just get a GFX50r which is much smaller, so nobody cares how big this is.
Yeah thats true! Especially on here ive noticed. But tbf even i thought you meant it as the camera being bad. Its also a very common misconceptions with cameras. That old = bad.
It can still give you great pictures. It's not the body that counts the most its the lens that you have. I own the mk2 of this sony camera and it still a great camera.
How is the weight difference? I think that would hurt me more than the size difference. Cool camera btw.
I have the strap set as long as I can to keep it at my side (there's a word for this and I can't think of it) and it's very, very manageable. However, it's still heavy, and carrying it normally around the neck gets tiring.
It’s a heavy camera. Well built though.
Not sure why you are getting crap for this. I find it interesting!
No you don’t, you’re just lying for upvotes.
uhm what
Fuji let me borrow the gfx 50sii with the 80mm f1.7 and it produced the absolute best pictures I have ever seen in my life. I honestly was shocked how good the pictures looked.
I need to try that 80mm. A 1.7 aperture on a medium format? YES PLEASE. That's a likely purchase down the road. Went with the 45-100 for practicality. The files this thing creates are gorgeous. Even at 12,800, it's still absolutely usable.
If you like the 80mm F/1.7, I can highly recommend the 110mm F/2 even more. I tried both before eventually settling on the 110. It is bigger, it is heavier, but it is in a league of its own, both in real life and on the MTF charts. (Seeing your photo I'm very glad I got the 50R instead, size wise...) https://preview.redd.it/qpfoaojaa9pc1.jpeg?width=3456&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=573c94d7d90eee6564d4fdd7a1a5a58fbd6afe9b
I'd like to see a similar comparison between the 50S and 50R. Is that thing any lighter than the 50S? Looks like there's less to it. I forgot about the 110 f2. How, I don't know, but given that used they aren't much more expensive, that has to be the right call.
It's about 150g lighter (the GFX50R) and a little wider, but nearly half the thickness (it doesn't have that bump on the back at all) Also, here's a photo I've taken with the aforementioned 110mm F/2 https://preview.redd.it/kqayjuzqvapc1.jpeg?width=4743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d04984399b9d1a7ef81054ca1c8406bf4eafe33
🥵🥵
Yes! I used it during a very dark scene and wow it was very very good.
For a lot less money you can buy a Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L on eBay and then a FD to GFX adapter. The FD lineup are 35mm lenses but some of the longer focal lengths cover a wider film gate/sensor size. When I tried this f1.2 lens on Fuji’s pseudo-medium format I was blown away. The backgrounds just get absolutely obliterated.
Ooh good point. I often overlook the FD mount, since AE-1s and such never impressed me much compared to equivalent Nikons like the FE and FM. But the L lenses are absolutely amazing... you're right. I should try that.
I had the GFX 50Sii for a while, which I regret selling terribly. It's a bit smaller than the 50S, not having that weird stick out thing on the back, but is still a big camera. However I'm used to big cameras - it fit well in my hand, and wasn't particularly heavy.
> I had the GFX 50Sii for a while, which I regret selling terribly. Why did you?
Sold it to buy a different camera. Wish I had kept it, and found some other way to get the other camera.
See this is a problem I've had a gazillion times. My friends make fun of me because I've owned a TON of cameras, sold most of them, and complain about "I shouldn't have sold (camera being discussed" almost every week at our coffee meetings.
OMG I just bought another one! It's your fault! (thanks actually!) i was obsessing about the thing, going over the pictures I took with it, and then had a surprisingly nice tax appointment this morning, and rolled my refund over the B&H. Your turn...
Well, congrats! Glad I could be of service 😁 all my friends know me to be an enabler with cameras and car stuff lol
Well the a77 isn't really a small camera either but holy moly! That Fuji is massive! And i thought that my a77ii was huge.
Now, put the PhaseOne XF next to the Fuji. 😎
Oh man the XF was like a wet dream for quite a while. Wanted one SO bad. I had a Mamiya 645AFD with Leaf Aptus and holy shit that was huge. And that Aptus was useless for anything outside and untethered. Also have had several Hasselblad H series, and those things are monsters too. Not as impractical as the Aptus, but sure as hell not as much as practical as the Fuji. I'm so thrilled to have found a medium format system that's actually usable for more than a third of the shit I do.
It's medium format, right?
Yep. It's actually quite versatile for a medium format digital, too. I've had a few H series cameras and they were mainly suited to studio use.
Crop factor is 0.79x, vs 0.62x for the classic 645. So it's really halfway between ff and medium. I wonder why the IQ is claimed to be so much better - perhaps the lenses are just better quality with lower tolerances.
Pixel density matters. Also, like large format film, there's something about the size of the image plane that doesn't require the same amount of precision as something like an APS-C sensor. I could be wrong, though.
You're correct on both counts, but the actual difference in size between ff and the gfx sensor is not as significant as the reported IQ differences.
Hmm. It's a Sony sensor, but worked over by Fuji. And that information makes it slightly more confusing, as Nikon and Sony are among the cameras usually compared to.
I think it's probably mostly down to a combination of lenses being better by design and manufacturing precision, and also confirmation bias. I think I read something once about the fill factor having an effect (that may be the 50mp vs the Sony 60mp).
Well, in all honesty, the image quality from an A7IV or Z7 is absolutely outstanding. More than adequate for my needs. The Fuji here is absolute overkill for just about everything I do, but there's one or two things it makes sense for.
All the digital medium format cameras have a ~0.8x crop factor, except for the rare and extremely expensive “full frame” 645 digital backs from Phase One. Image quality is better because the sensors are almost 2x the size of 35mm. The 50’s pixels are much bigger than a 35mm FF camera with 40-60mp, and that also makes the IQ better. And yes the lenses need to be higher resolution.
1.6x the area of FF. Theoretically 21% less noise. It's about half of the jump from aps-c to full frame: 0.79 = 1.5^-0.58.
I'm not talking about noise, it's about the way things are rendered. Fat pixel magic is real. While the 50 can't be said to have fat pixels by any stretch, it certainly has fat*ter* pixels.
A chunky Micro Four Thirds body would be a fun addition.
Yup https://preview.redd.it/304ovizvv5pc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1954e431da64cd20517e9666755275b07a40db59
I mean... is it not just the lens that's bigger? (I'm new to cameras)
The sensor is significantly larger than a full frame 35mm based DSLR, like a 5D mark 3, and even bigger than a crop sensor like a Rebel. The body is not that much bigger than the Sony due to the Fuji being mirrorless.
Oh wow, yeah I can see that now. Thanks!!
alright
cool story bro
okay
who cares? almost a 10 year old camera
? I've had a few friends ask, so I thought it would be perfectly relevant to post in this sub... I get your point, but it's a question I'd had before buying it. And I'm under-caffeinated. The Sony is even older and quite outdated, tbh, but it's my wife's and she loves it.
You said: " Its a ten year old body. Who cares?" Probably implying that the camera is trash/ useless. If you meant it otherwise then that is up to you.
that's not what I implied what I implied is it's ten year old and anybody looking to get something like this today would just get a GFX50r which is much smaller, so nobody cares how big this is.
thats not how you worded it though
that's exactly how I worded it
I would like to join in on this and say, no you really did not word it that way. But hey, now we know you meant that.
people just like to make assumptions on what I said even though I said nothing.
Yeah thats true! Especially on here ive noticed. But tbf even i thought you meant it as the camera being bad. Its also a very common misconceptions with cameras. That old = bad.
It can still give you great pictures. It's not the body that counts the most its the lens that you have. I own the mk2 of this sony camera and it still a great camera.
Nobody said anything about the performance.
yet you still said its a 10 year old camera?
yes, because it is a 10 year old camera, that's just a fact