Fujifilm X Summit Livestream 20/03/25

[BTM_Pix]

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

If the other news is a focal length increasing adapter for the new RF a la X100, it will get a whole load more interesting for me

Well it has a 49mm front thread which is the same as the X100 so theoretically you could use the existing ones for that.

Can't be that easy surely ?

[MrSMW]

39 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Well it has a 49mm front thread which is the same as the X100 so theoretically you could use the existing ones for that.

Can't be that easy surely ?

If it is, then 🥰

I've watched a couple of early reviews now...

Jonas Rask, who produces great photography work, has a TERRIBLE piece on t'internet. Looks like it was all shot with an IG filter as one commentator mentioned. I agree. It was also very boring.

And then Gordon, good old Gordon, gave it to us straight and in his usual methodical, drama free, presentation...and now I need to find some funds, a pre-order button for France and work out the rest of what I am going to do.

[MrSMW]

Also, there is digital stab for video it seems but not the crop mode.

[Andrew Reid]

In case anyone is interested what the Canon 40mm F2.8 pancake stopped down to F4 looks like on the GFX 100 sensor...

102 megapixel RAW

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dhwquD9iiCYouNpwsmlu1-QcmSSNE8VD/view?usp=share_link

No crop. No vignetting correction.

I think for 5 grand Fuji really should have put a better lens on it.

I mean, if an old EF 100 euro one can do this...

And it doesn't even have the advantage of a short flange distance.

OK it is 5mm less wide... so 35mm equivalent. rather than a 28mm equivalent.

But the 28mm F3.1 equivalent. look for 5 grand is a bit... boring?

I think we know the reason they didn't go all out on it... A more exciting lens would have stopped people buying the more exotic GFX mount stuff!

[Andrew Reid]

The pancake is 32mm equiv. rather... 40 x 0.79 = 31.6

Anything between 40-45mm seems to be a nice sweet spot for me on a GFX camera.

https://jonasraskphotography.com/2023/11/05/the-future-of-the-elusive-6524-format/

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

102 megapixel RAW

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dhwquD9iiCYouNpwsmlu1-QcmSSNE8VD/view?usp=share_link

No crop. No vignetting correction.

I think for 5 grand Fuji really should have put a better lens on it.

I mean, if an old EF 100 euro one can do this...

I love the EF 40, but as we both said yesterday, the edges are a bit soft.  In that picture, the tree branches near the left of the frame are soft even without pixel peeping.  For me, that's not a problem at all and I think it looks just fine.  But for a lot of Internet people, they'd be whining about edge softness almost as much as they're whining about f/4 now.

Just including this one from reddit because it actually made me laugh.  "An F/4 lens is simply too slow to shoot with normal shutter speeds in so many situations."  🤣

This guy's normal situations must be "unlit street at 3am' or something since they don't seem to think that one will be able to get 1/40 at ISO 6400 on an f/4 lens. 🤣

Anyway.  I'd have traded a bigger lens for another stop, but I still don't think f/4 is a big deal for this sort of camera.

[MrSMW]

I haven’t slept on it, but I’m going to have to pass at this time.

Love both the concept and the execution, but I think I’d need a lens more like that on the Leica Q3 43 for my needs to make it workable.

I really would like a fast(ish) fixed prime or short zoom, relatively lightweight compact but for my needs, at this time, it does not exist.

I have my benchmark for my stills needs and it’s still the A7RV and as things stand, for my specific use case, it’s still unbeatable.

I won’t bore you with why or try and justify it and it might not be as cool, but ultimately, this stuff is a tool first and any fun and sexiness have to come second. Sadly 😏

[Django]

I've watched a lot of reviews and even downloaded some RAW pics and came to the conclusion that this is not going to be the cam for me personally despite how much I wanted it to be. The bottleneck is really the lens. Its not so much that its an f4 but a 28mm equivalent pancake f4 just gives a very dull iPhone look and totally counteracts the huge sensor and kills the medium format look imo. No mojo, no 3D pop, super flat/compressed bokeh/blur. I've seen smartphone pics that look better than some of these GFX100 RF shots.

Maybe for architecture, landscape this could work thanks to the high MP & DR. Obviously street photography is what this rangefinder type camera is about but yeah f4 isn't really great for low light situations. Not to mention the crop features will not even make it an f4 as far as DoF.

The aspect ratio dial is the coolest thing about this camera but it isn't actual aspect ratio like in medium format film. Its just a sensor crop here, you're not actually getting extra width like on XPan. FoV won't change, less DoF control and significant drop in resolution (not a huge problem with 102MP but still a big drop). So in the end its really more of a framing gimmick.

Finally the video specs while suitable are nothing exceptional. Especially without IBIS or 4K60p. Also a big shame the cropping and aspect ratio options aren't there in video.

I still think its a gorgeous camera and maybe in the right hands its inspiring. But the actual results I've seen so far seem quite boring/dull. When you're going with a fixed lens it better be good and the one they chose just doesn't excite me one bit.

At this point I'd probably prefer a Q2, Sigma BF with fast prime, X100 VI or my M9 with Summicron 28mm. Oh and of course any GFX interchangeable with a better lens.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Django said:

The bottleneck is really the lens

I think somewhat sadly you are correct.

I don't think it's a bad lens as such, but rather for my needs, won't cut it.

I really do want that 'one & done' relatively compact, fixed lens, probably medium format, camera...but it doesn't quite exist yet. For me.

f2.8 and we might have been talking...

50mm AND 2.8 and we'd have been in, because it would then have been more like a 35mm f2 in FF speak.

I'm not really sure why the lens has to be so slow? Well it's not that slow, but too slow for me realistically and from my experience, f4 doesn't cut it indoors after dark. Not without flash and that would mean going back to a totally different way of working and I'm not changing what I do in order to force a camera to try and meet my needs.

Look around and there are quite a few FF 28/35/40mm FF lenses f2 and faster that are no bigger. 

I compared the new RF with the Leica Q3 today and decided that although I preferred the RF as a concept, in reality the Q3 would suit my needs better. And the Q3 43 even more so most of the time...but then I would now be limited by not being able to shoot wider than 43mm.

The reality is that at over 5k each, I'd have to be nuts to use any of these as my only camera.

Sony A7CR could be considered a competitor for the Q3/43 being about the same size and having the same sensor except it's so flawed to me, I wouldn't have one...because I compared that with the A7RV and within mere nanoseconds came to the conclusion that the A7RV was the most perfect camera for my (stills needs) and the A7CR fell way short. And still is.

Yes, it's a little big bigger, but there isn't another high MP camera that's any smaller other than the Sigma FP-L and by comparison, that has even more flaws than the A7CR, so that's a nope.

And what's better than a used A7RV? 

A pair of A7RV's!

I'm going to sleep on that proposition for a couple of weeks, but it's viable. Very viable. Trade the Zf and the 40mm plus 3x Tamron zooms for another used A7RV and pick up 4 used compact i-series Sigma primes. Zero availability issues with any of this stuff.

It's not 'one and done' but 2+4 (which kind of equals 6?) but it's the closest real world I can get to the new RF without keeping a zoom in the mix. It's really '2 & done' because I'd use one set of lenses indoors and the other set out, ie, 20 + 65 in and 35 + 90 out, plus use crop mode on the 90 if I wanted something longer.

And if I did keep a zoom in the mix and wanted to stick with 'one & done', I'd struggle to see past the A7RV with the excellent Tamron G2 28-75mm which is my current workhorse because I can shoot that thing at 61mp FF or 26mp cropped with a range of 28-110mm...which is almost double the RF, with more megapixies, albeit at a bit of size & weight.

Basically, all day today, I have been trying to find a way to make the RF a reality and the closest I got was pairing it with an XM5 + Sirui Aurora 85mm f1.4 (so like a FF 125/130mm) for all the longer stuff and some small fast lens for darker indoor environments.

And it could work...but then I was back to 2 cameras and lens swaps on one of them and did that make any more sense than 2x A7RV's plus 4 primes, because it's actually only 1 more lens than the Fuji option, about the same overall cost, but arguably the Sony option offers a higher quality output ALL of the time and not just see of the time.

Here endeth my day:

The twin Fuji option looks the least likely of the 3 options I have been pondering.

The safest one is stick with my current set up of A7RV + 3x compact zooms + Zf with 40mm.

The kind of 'between the two' options is the 2x A7RV + 4 primes.

I'm very happy with my current set up. I stand by that and am not looking to change ANYTHING unless it actually makes sense.

Could I make something work? Of course. There are many options I could make work, but as above, change for change sake does not interest me.

So sorry RF, maybe one day, but sadly I can't make a good enough case for you 😏

[Django]

18 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I'm not really sure why the lens has to be so slow?

Fuji says it was a compromise between size and price. They had a strict goal to keep the size and thickness around X100 series. In fact they are hoping to apply the X100 "sold out" viral success in an upscale segment. Price had to fit under the $5K mental barrier. So that explains it, wether they achieve commercial success is another story though.

I'm guessing the thinking for low light situations is to go with a flash, since the leaf shutter allows super high sync capabilities. I would have loved it if they had included a flash like on X100 series, but again size and price.

I can see this camera working great for certain applications. But I can also see it being frustrating at others and the overall IQ is just not what you'd expect from a camera at that price point imo (unless you really like slow wide lenses). If they unlock the aspect ratios and crop factors for video it may make it slightly more interesting as a fun cool hybrid but I still think there are better options in the compact fixed lens universe, including their own X100VI that has IBIS, NDs, flash, 6K, hybrid OVF/EVF, f2 lens.. at a third of the price.

The GFX100RF feels like more of a luxury statement camera with mid specs. Probably the most Leica product from Fuji. They could have called it the GFX100BF.

[MrSMW]

29 minutes ago, Django said:

The GFX100RF feels like more of a luxury statement camera with mid specs

That's about the sum of it and I'm not sure if it's going to be a total flop, but The Internet is moaning about the f4 and the lack of IBIS.

A lot of those moaning are actual prospective punters who now won't be.

And there will be quite a few others who will buy one...and then sell it very quickly and then make a video about why.

The used market by the end of this year will have them under 4k and then I reckon before the end of next year, below 3k.

Take away the looks (not to everyone's taste), the size and the 100mp sensor (which many did not actually want and would have preferred a 50mp one with better low light), and what have you actually got and who is your market?

I think this one was a bit of a punt on Fujis part and I think they haven't got it right.

I reckon (but what do I know), that they should have gone with this body style, but NOT made it a fixed lens camera but instead brought out 3x pancake(ish) lenses at least f3.2, such as a 40mm, a 65mm and a 90mm., ie, made it the worlds best compact MF system.

Or at least launched it with a wide and tele converter as with the X100. It will still be interesting to know if the X100 jobs will work but so far no one seems to have tested or reported that, that I can find.

37 minutes ago, Django said:

Fuji says it was a compromise between size and price

They should have compromised on the price then. For someone prepared to spend 5k on one of these, it's not that big a leap to 5.5 or even 6k. And if it had to be a tiny bit bigger, who cares?

I think it's great that companies at least are willing to push things a bit, but IMO, they aren't pushing enough or just falling short in various niggling, but fundamental areas.

Sigma fell way shorter than they might have done with their FP and FP-L, - so close yet so far...

The new BF will be the next TikTok camera as those folks dump their X100vi's.

The Sony A7Cii and R.

S9, S1Rii launches and niggles.

Now the RF.

All close, but no cigar for me.

And it goes without saying no camera is going to be The Perfect camera for all people, all of the time, but surely, when all the various components exist over 5-6 manufacturers, what will it take for just one of them to say, "hey I know, why don't we cherrypick the best bits of the best cameras out there and make The Uber camera?".

It's not like the tech doesn't exist! How hard can it be? Very, it seems...

 

[Django]

Fuji often come up with great concepts but miss on their first gen products.. X100, Xpro, XT, GFX etc.

The Eterna cine also got lukewarm reception.

I still think GFX100RF is a great concept, shrinking the GFX body and bringing the fixed lens X100 rangefinder design  to medium format with some really cool ergonomic additions (the aspect ratio / crop front & back dials, the custom front lever).

Only real bummer is the lens & IBIS. I could imagine a GFX50RF with a f2.8 lens & IBIS. 6K. Open-gate. Now that would be a smash.

I can understand the price point objective of under $5K. Fuji wants to undercut Leica as they should.

[eatstoomuchjam]

I'd still say that in a lot of ways, this is going to be a fantastic travel/vacation camera.  If I slow down to think about it, when I travel, the Fujinon 32-64/4 was on my original GFX 100 - and now on my GFX 100 II about 90% of the time.  As long as things are sunny, I'm usually shooting between f/5.6 and 11 for landscapes/urban stuff.  Shallow DOF is not important in those situations.  If you're on a scenic overlook pointing the camera at a valley with some mountains in the distance, shallow DOF is mostly useless (and half the time I just use my phone for this stuff instead of digging my camera out of the bag in the back seat or trunk - which might be changed if the camera is small enough to keep on me).

When I change lenses, it's usually for portraits with the 110/2 (usually used wide open) and the 63/2.8 (smaller and a stop faster for use in the evening and for a smaller profile).

The more I think about this camera, the more I'm excited for it to hit the used market - especially anticipating that Fuji will update firmware sooner or later to allow cropping in video mode (and hopefully 5.8k full width and 8k 1:1 modes) as well. 

Are there things I'd miss about swappable lenses?  Sure.  Would some of them be erased if Fuji release a small teleconverter and wide angle converter?  Yes.  If they don't, do I have a half dozen of them in a drawer somewhere?  Probably.  Are any of them any good?  Unlikely, but... worth a shot.

[Ninpo33]

Did someone say wide adapter? 
 

I’ve been having fun working on a few adapter solutions with my rangefinder lenses. Will be fun to see what covers the GFX Sensor.