Fuji GFX100S 100Mb Medium Format shoots 4K 30p and 10bit, IBIS

Getting close to 65mm movie format. Looked at that way $10K is incredibly cheep. You can't even buy an Arri 65 (rent only).

I have the GFX 50R which is a great Medium Format stills camera. This thing has a totally different sensor though + worlds first Medium Format IBIS + very fast AF.
 
Benjobe said:
Am I seeing what you're seeing? blown-out highlights. low-contrast. No true blacks, just washed out greys.

IMO it doesn't look any different than GH5 or A7S footage.
Click to expand...

The Cinema5D first impression article/video says everywhere, on their site and in the video, "This is a prototype, not a final shipping camera and it is obviously still being engineered and tweaked. Don't make any picture judgements from this footage." Not a review. Not a final camera. Not a final image. It's bit premature
to make any picture quality judgements. I have done similar reviews and it's maddening that no matter how many disclaimers you put into the articles and videos, people have to make picture quality judgements on a working prototype.

FWIW, I agree with you, the image quality was underwhelming but I have a lot more faith in Fuji that the final product should blow away any GH5 or Sony A7 variant footage and should be much more in the realm of a RED or Venice level camera. My XT3 looks better than the GH5 or any Sony A7 variant camera (to me) so I would
think a $10,000.00 camera will do better. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong but if I were Johnnie, I wouldn't have even published the video because people have to make picture quality assessments, even when specifically tell them not to. I would have just written about it like Newsshooter did. I never include prototype footage when I review prototype cameras
(the GH5S prototype I had didn't look nearly as good as the shipping GH5S did that I used a few months later).
 
puredrifting said:
The Cinema5D first impression article/video says everywhere, on their site and in the video, "This is a prototype, not a final shipping camera and it is obviously still being engineered and tweaked. Don't make any picture judgements from this footage." Not a review. Not a final camera. Not a final image. It's bit premature
to make any picture quality judgements. I have done similar reviews and it's maddening that no matter how many disclaimers you put into the articles and videos, people have to make picture quality judgements on a working prototype.

FWIW, I agree with you, the image quality was underwhelming but I have a lot more faith in Fuji that the final product should blow away any GH5 or Sony A7 variant footage and should be much more in the realm of a RED or Venice level camera. My XT3 looks better than the GH5 or any Sony A7 variant camera (to me) so I would
think a $10,000.00 camera will do better. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong but if I were Johnnie, I wouldn't have even published the video because people have to make picture quality assessments, even when specifically tell them not to. I would have just written about it like Newsshooter did. I never include prototype footage when I review prototype cameras
(the GH5S prototype I had didn't look nearly as good as the shipping GH5S did that I used a few months later).
Click to expand...

Accurate. And we should see plenty of footage soon enough considering the camera is due to be fully manufactured, distributed and shipping to customers by June 27th.

And yeah I didn't think the Cinema5D footage showed anything special. It was well shot by Behiri and made me want to go back to Japan, but it could have been any camera. I hope Fuji does a produced film with a big cinematographer like they did for the X-T3 launch.
 
Sensor size, by itself, has nothing to due with DOF, bokeh, or any other aspect of image quality. We've had debates for many years regarding the "FF myth" and anyone who's done the equivalence math as well as real world tests knows this. FF is not better than S35 or even M43, and MF or "LF" (lol) is not better than FF or S35 or M43. The only way sensor size affects image quality is physical factors related to photon capture, noise, DR, resolution, and so on. Marketwise, lens availability from the stills world is what makes FF so valuable when desiring to shoot shallow DOF. Focal reducers, e.g. SpeedBoosters allow FF (and even MF) lenses to be used on smaller sensors to provide shallower DOF. On M43, low cost e.g. Voigtlander F.95 lenses can provide excellent shallow DOF rivaling larger sensors and lenses. MF has zero advantage other than perhaps lower cost lenses to resolve higher resolution (based on physics). Are there MF lenses which surpass e.g. FF Zeiss Otus (stills) or S35/FF cinema lenses e.g. Zeiss MP/SP, Cooke S7i, and Leica Thalia? Do ARRI 65 MP (~MF) beat those lenses? Even if close, how many lens options for ultra high quality MF "LF" lol? Can't blame them for marketing new products, however many will agree the sensor size game/illusion is pretty much over.

I watched the C5D video- the most impressive aspect was the IBIS. Image quality really emoted 'video' vs. 'film'. We know this can be corrected in grading, however straight from camera doesn't appeal as with Canon on the low end and Sony VENICE and Alexa LF/mLF/65 on the higher end. Note motion was carefully controlled, so RS may be challenging. In any case, unless one needs ultra high res stills, with occasional video, it's not compelling over the X-T3, A7 III, GH5x, 1DX II, C200, C300 II, FS7, and so on (sub $10K cameras). We need less RS, more DR, 422/444, 10+ bits, better color science (e.g. just make it ACCURATE), great IBIS, more codec options, better audio: ADCs + XLR, and more lens options e.g. swappable lens mounts (as with Kinefinity), NOT bigger sensors or new proprietary lens mounts (e.g. L, RF).
 
Twin SD card slots

Twin SD card slots operate as you'd expect, and can be set up for overflow storage, backup or separate stills / video storage. The GFX 100 is UHS-II compatible, and with a fast card installed, the camera is remarkably quick in operation.

Whereas it's not uncommon for other medium-format digital cameras to start to moan and wheeze after a few high-resolution Raw exposures, the GFX 100 appears to have power to spare from its quad-core X-Processor 4 engine. To photographers, the benefits of this speediness should go without saying. The downside is that with 100MP to play with, and a processor that can keep up with that many pixels, it's all too easy to 'overshoot' and run out of card space.

That being said, our shooting so far has been in 14-bit Raw mode. It's unlikely that the GFX 100 will be quite so light on its feet when capturing extended 16-bit Raw sequences.
Click to expand...
Fujifilm-GFX100-09.jpeg
 
IMO, the key will be the camera's computational power to eliminate moire despite its pixel binning/line skipping approach to the 8.8 data off its ~ 80 MPX sensor and the likewise ability to control the rolling shutter. The rest - 10-bit, etc. - can be tweaked into shape before the release and Fuji has a pretty impressive record there. The dual-battery grip may be a hint that GFX100S sucks a lot of power out of them ... and that is a good thing.

Poisonally, I think S1 ought to remain remain the budget champ for a while - depending on the promised Z6 => ProRes Raw developments - and this camera will become kind of an Alexa Jr. for the hybrid shooters "OMG, did you see him lugging that monster around? He must be a Vanity Fair/Sports Illustrated cover pro. Excuse me, sir, your name wouldn't be Ansel by any chance, would it?"
 
Am I reading the specs right? Only 5 fps for photos? That seems like a typo. Can it be true?

GH5: 12 fps
A7RIII: 10fps
Z6: 12fps

I like being able to use my GH5 for stills or video, and I use burst photo mode quite often.

Is there something about large format cameras that makes them unable to perform high fps?
 
Benjobe said:
Am I reading the specs right? Only 5 fps for photos? That seems like a typo. Can it be true?

GH5: 12 fps
A7RIII: 10fps
Z6: 12fps

I like being able to use my GH5 for stills or video, and I use burst photo mode quite often.

Is there something about large format cameras that makes them unable to perform high fps?
Click to expand...

It wasn’t that long ago that 5 fps on a “FF” camera was respectable outside of 1D class bodies and medium format cameras were not even cranking out 1-2 fps.

1) That’s a lot of data to be moving around
2) Most photographers shooting medium/large format stills are not “spraying & praying”.
 
Benjobe said:
Is there something about large format cameras that makes them unable to perform high fps?
Click to expand...

Not the sensor size itself, most likely the resolution, computing power, and bus/transfer/media-write speeds: 102 megapixels. Also note if not mentioned yet, this is a Sony made BSI sensor, which explains the hybrid AF performance.
 
jcs said:
Sensor size, by itself, has nothing to due with DOF, bokeh, or any other aspect of image quality. We've had debates for many years regarding the "FF myth" and anyone who's done the equivalence math as well as real world tests knows this. FF is not better than S35 or even M43, and MF or "LF" (lol) is not better than FF or S35 or M43. The only way sensor size affects image quality is physical factors related to photon capture, noise, DR, resolution, and so on. Marketwise, lens availability from the stills world is what makes FF so valuable when desiring to shoot shallow DOF. Focal reducers, e.g. SpeedBoosters allow FF (and even MF) lenses to be used on smaller sensors to provide shallower DOF. On M43, low cost e.g. Voigtlander F.95 lenses can provide excellent shallow DOF rivaling larger sensors and lenses. MF has zero advantage other than perhaps lower cost lenses to resolve higher resolution (based on physics). Are there MF lenses which surpass e.g. FF Zeiss Otus (stills) or S35/FF cinema lenses e.g. Zeiss MP/SP, Cooke S7i, and Leica Thalia? Do ARRI 65 MP (~MF) beat those lenses? Even if close, how many lens options for ultra high quality MF "LF" lol? Can't blame them for marketing new products, however many will agree the sensor size game/illusion is pretty much over.

I watched the C5D video- the most impressive aspect was the IBIS. Image quality really emoted 'video' vs. 'film'. We know this can be corrected in grading, however straight from camera doesn't appeal as with Canon on the low end and Sony VENICE and Alexa LF/mLF/65 on the higher end. Note motion was carefully controlled, so RS may be challenging. In any case, unless one needs ultra high res stills, with occasional video, it's not compelling over the X-T3, A7 III, GH5x, 1DX II, C200, C300 II, FS7, and so on (sub $10K cameras). We need less RS, more DR, 422/444, 10+ bits, better color science (e.g. just make it ACCURATE), great IBIS, more codec options, better audio: ADCs + XLR, and more lens options e.g. swappable lens mounts (as with Kinefinity), NOT bigger sensors or new proprietary lens mounts (e.g. L, RF).
Click to expand...

This.

Bigger sensors get you more resolution, but that's about it.

FF is a sweetspot because of lens availability: it's not easy to find good super-fast lenses for smaller sensors, and lenses for bigger sensors are usually super sharp but both slow and very expensive.

If you think f/2.0 on FF is shallow-enough DoF for you, then you can get f/1.4 primes for APS-C, and f/2.5 primes for 44x33 MF; MF will be sharper than FF, which will be sharper than APS-C, but really, how much detail do you really need?
And if that's not shallow enough for you, then f/1.4 on FF is the best you'll get: f/1.0 on APS-C will be both expensive and soft, f/1.8 on 44x33 MF is hard to come by.
 
Benjobe said:
Am I reading the specs right? Only 5 fps for photos? That seems like a typo. Can it be true?

GH5: 12 fps
A7RIII: 10fps
Z6: 12fps

I like being able to use my GH5 for stills or video, and I use burst photo mode quite often.

Is there something about large format cameras that makes them unable to perform high fps?
Click to expand...

5fps at 14bit ADC (1.2GB/s), 2.7fps at 16bit ADC (540MB/s).

Due to the sheer number of pixels and Sony's column parallel ADC design, the readout speed is the bottleneck.

8-lane SLVS-EC interface has a maximum throughput of 1.84GB/s
 
jcs said:
102M * 16bits * 1Byte/8bits = 204MB?
Click to expand...

Got the Fuji number off some Swedish Fuji "ambassador", who was working with the beta/pre-production unit. So, either he is wrong or there's some secret sauce or ... something.

BTW, his GFX100 photos looked really good. Not that anyone should be expecting anything else.
 
Samuel H said:
If you think f/2.0 on FF is shallow-enough DoF for you, then you can get f/1.4 primes for APS-C, and f/2.5 primes for 44x33 MF; MF will be sharper than FF, which will be sharper than APS-C, but really, how much detail do you really need?
And if that's not shallow enough for you, then f/1.4 on FF is the best you'll get: f/1.0 on APS-C will be both expensive and soft, f/1.8 on 44x33 MF is hard to come by.
Click to expand...

FF F1.4 as the best meaning along with high sharpness, e.g. Zeiss Otus 1.4? I've got Canon's 85 F1.2L and agree it's not a sharp lens at 1.2 (it's a 'character' lens at 1.2 with lots of aberrations etc., looks really cool, but not sharp). Reviews of the new Canon RF 50 & 85 F1.2 appear to show these are sharp lenses at F1.2 e.g. https://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/canon-lens-review/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-2l-usm-review . Haven't checked specs compared to the Otus, however all comments so far on the new 1.2 RF's rate these lenses as very sharp wide open.
 
DLD said:
Got the Fuji number off some Swedish Fuji "ambassador", who was working with the beta/pre-production unit. So, either he is wrong or there's some secret sauce or ... something.

BTW, his GFX100 photos looked really good. Not that anyone should be expecting anything else.
Click to expand...

This source? https://jonasraskphotography.com/20...orrow-the-fujifilm-gfx100-first-look-preview/

For stills and needing 100Mpix resolution, this looks to be a nice deal compared to Hasselblad, and Phase One (has more pix than the $20K Leica S). Someone will probably do a shootout soon: found this for MF vs. FF etc.: http://www.romeobravophoto.com/medium-format-battle/ . In one shot he preferred his XPro2 + Voigtlander F1.1:
Kelly-Williams-in-Black-and-White.jpg

VS. Fuji GFX (prior model):
GFX-XTrans-0082.jpg


Not apples to apples (color vs. BW) and surely the GFX has more detail; does show bokeh isn't king on MF. For max res MF does appear king with the Phase One XF IQ4 at 150Mpix (with larger 53.7×40.4mm sensor vs. GFX100's at 43.8mm x 32.9mm). Who makes the 150Mpix sensor? Sony. Hope the A7S III has 12bit and a global shutter (by the time they release it lol).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top