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

James0b57 said:
Speaking of camera comparisons...

Lee Morris at F-Stoppers compared different formats in a blind test that will be revieled in a video next week sometime.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/can-you-guess-which-camera-took-which-picture-383354

I think most of know the differences and benefits of the varying formats. For example if you are making 2MP images, then there is probably little reason to spend more for medium format cameras. But we also know that there is a big difference between medium format lens at f4 with 100MP image, vs 16MP m43 camera at f1.8.... .
Click to expand...
Whether the photo-video consumer wants it, it's pretty clear that the Japanese manufacturers decided to make it a size game. Full frame models that were only recently selling in the mid-$3,000's are now dropping into the low-mid $1,000's. Medium Format that was only recently in the new car price range is now down to price of a new Lada. 100 MPX for ten grand is a good deal but probably be down in the $6,000 territory within two years, with the 150 MPX taking over $10,000 and 200-250 MPX taking over $25,000.

And MFT going below $750.
 
DLD said:
Whether the photo-video consumer wants it, it's pretty clear that the Japanese manufacturers decided to make it a size game. Full frame models that were only recently selling in the mid-$3,000's are now dropping into the low-mid $1,000's. Medium Format that was only recently in the new car price range is now down to price of a new Lada. 100 MPX for ten grand is a good deal but probably be down in the $6,000 territory within two years, with the 150 MPX taking over $10,000 and 200-250 MPX taking over $25,000.

And MFT going below $750.
Click to expand...

While I think the GFX100S is really exciting technology, for video/digital cinema, I am not yet convinced that it's worth the expense, weight and form factor over just a S35 imager for 4K.
I am open to being convinced, once it's shipping and some of the better testers can shoot it against say the Alexa Mini, C200, BMD UMP G2, etc. the proof will be in the footage.
The improvements for video may be fairly subtle, like comparing FF digital cinema cameras to their S35 counterparts. I doubt if the Alexa Mini LF is going to look really any better than
the regular Alexa Mini. The really interesting shootout will be the GFX100S against the XT-3, side by side.
 
Agreed.

I have the GFX50s and while the still quality is stunning, if I got the GFX100 it would be for the IBIS and phase detect AF (in stills) alone.

If they were serious about video they would have put a full size HDMI on it.
 
puredrifting said:
While I think the GFX100S is really exciting technology, for video/digital cinema, I am not yet convinced that it's worth the expense, weight and form factor over just a S35 imager for 4K. I am open to being convinced, once it's shipping and some of the better testers can shoot it against say the Alexa Mini, C200, BMD UMP G2, etc. the proof will be in the footage...
Click to expand...
GFX50 and GFX100 are the opening salvo in the Medium Format arrival. They're not video cameras per se but hybrids with the stills retaining their primary purpose.

But one has to be aware of the trends. The next generation full frame models will - 99.99% probability - have Sony's 62 MPX sensor with its ~ 850mm2 area. Alexa LF is only slightly bigger at 937 but Alexa65 is 1384. GFX 50/100/Hassy1D sensor is 1452 and Phase One's IQ4 is 2136.

It's likely that an 8K professional high end camera will be coming out with a next generation MF sensor and it's likely to have a 1452 size - because Sony wants it that way. The video, however, will lag behind the stills for the obvious reasons.

The Medium Format has crept up while nobody was looking.

PS. A friend of mine was into photography since youth, so over the last few days I was reading up on the cameras that he had, which lead me to a bunch of the Russian language Wikipedia pages. The Soviets were copying American gear before WWII, then got the German tooling from Zeiss - Jena is in East Germany - and proceeded to copy everything German, including Rolleiflex and Contax. By the 1970's, they were also copying Hasselblad. It was build in Kiev and exported to the West, where it was called Hasselbladski because the look, if not the assembly quality, was identical. It also cost about half a year of an average Soviet worker's wages. Now, the vintage gear is available for practically peanuts.
 
Fujifilm GFX100S will be announced later this month. Similar to GFX100, just a tad bit smaller than the GFX50S. Will include same sensor, IBIS (made to fit the smaller body), No battery grip. Price $5999 ($4K less than current GFX100). Same or similar video specs. And as we all know, the price of the original GFX100 will probably drop a few thousand dollars.
 
S will probably not have the 407 MPX pixel-shift mode.

But , if someone wants 407, save your pennies and giddy up.

 
It ought to be mentioned - again - that there are a lot of rumors of Canon's 75-90 MPX full frame camera. If the rumors are in the ballpark and it's priced at under $4,000, then Fuji's ability to get $10,000 for a 102 MPX GFX100 will disappear. As it is, Sony's 61 MPX A7RIV at $3,500 (was on sale for $3,000 during the holidays) has higher resolution than Fuji's 50 MPX GFX50S at $5,500. Should Canon release a competitor, the top of the line Fuji will have to either drastically cut its MAP or up the sensor to a three year old 150 MPX Sony product, currently found inside the very expensive Phase One line. Or wait for something new from Sony.
 
Off sneaked specs - only 14-bit recording (the $10,000 version has 16), a much lower res EVF and a smaller battery (off XT4). Still has both PD and CD auto focus.

No mention of the 4x pixel-shifting mode, so I was probably correct.

Official announcement tomorrow.
 
Not specific to this camera, but has ANYONE seen any video samples from any medium format VIDEO capable camera that looked perceptibly better than what good footage shot with FF or even S35 imagers looks like?
I haven't and I have combed far and wide. Rephrasing this, is medium format video a boondoggle designed to just get sheep-like video buyers into the fold because, "It's an even huger sensor than FF, bigger sensors
must be better, right?"

Personally, I am holding out for the upcoming 32K 8x10 sensor cameras, you know they'll be here soon. if the larger the sensor, the better the video camera, why not just go for the classic 8x10 or 9x12" sensor?
They'll probably look like big iPads eventually.
 
My god, can you imagine how slow the readout would be on an 8x10 camera :)

I dont think medium format looks terribly different. I think it's better for selective focus in a wide shot. Sure, you can get the same DOF on a smaller sensor with a faster lens, but it'll be crappier IQ. That's the one thing- you can get better quality optics at equivalent DOF in medium format, and possibly objectively superior optics at optimal apertures.

But the difference is nothing that would loosen my purse strings.

Of course, the GFX100 has a crop factor of 0.79x, so I suppose that the difference between it and full-frame is less than the difference between full-frame and S35.
 
puredrifting said:
Not specific to this camera, but has ANYONE seen any video samples from any medium format VIDEO capable camera that looked perceptibly better than what good footage shot with FF or even S35 imagers looks like?
I haven't and I have combed far and wide. Rephrasing this, is medium format video a boondoggle designed to just get sheep-like video buyers into the fold because, "It's an even huger sensor than FF, bigger sensors
must be better, right?"

Personally, I am holding out for the upcoming 32K 8x10 sensor cameras, you know they'll be here soon. if the larger the sensor, the better the video camera, why not just go for the classic 8x10 or 9x12" sensor?
They'll probably look like big iPads eventually.
Click to expand...

Even though I have a GFX50s for stills, (exclusively landscapes, really), I find it comical that companies like Fuji try to add video "features" to MF cameras.

When the GFX100 came out, I went to my local photo shop to check it out, get my hand on it, etc.

After messing with it a bit I started exploring the ports and when I came across the mini HDMI ports, I looked at the Fuji rep and said "Look just make it a great MF camera, doing crap like THAT just shows us you don't GAF about video, so don't bother."

He wasn't amused.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Even though I have a GFX50s for stills, (exclusively landscapes, really), I find it comical that companies like Fuji try to add video "features" to MF cameras.

When the GFX100 came out, I went to my local photo shop to check it out, get my hand on it, etc.

After messing with it a bit I started exploring the ports and when I came across the mini HDMI ports, I looked at the Fuji rep and said "Look just make it a great MF camera, doing crap like THAT just shows us you don't GAF about video, so don't bother."

He wasn't amused.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I really wanted to be impressed by some of the GFX100 footage but in the end, it's almost indistiguishable from what I shoot on my $800.00 X-T3. I already pretty convicted that FF is mostly a crutch for people
who don't know how to light and think shooting everything ISO 12,800 should be the norm, "I gits lower noise and higher ISO so that's betterer, right?" I personally really dislike the FOV from FF video/lens compared to S35.

I'm beginning to think that MF video is probably going to be just more of the Emperors New Clothes for shooting 16K video on a gigantic sensor in fake anamorphic for 4" iPhone screens. It's the world we live in.
The manufacturers have clearly painted themselves into a corner. The market is shrinking, almost every camera that their client base owns is MORE than good enough to do almost anything so we've devolved into
there really are very few new technologies coming out in new cameras that means anything (DGO? Meh, maybe. 8K? 12K? Definitely almost worthless. HDR? Meh, not important really. FF? Please. It's quite a stretch to call
that an innovation, more like the new tail fins on the '58 Caddy versus the '57 ;-) BMD gets a trophy for the new 12K sensor, not because it's 12K, but because it's actually pretty damn innovative.

MF video? Unless they can demonstrate a significant and noticeable improvement over S35 and FF sensors for video, then who will care? Those damn lenses that can cover that Texas size sensor aren't cheap either!
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I personally really dislike the FOV from FF video/lens compared to S35.
Click to expand...

Huh? You can get the same FOV on either with different lenses. Except you can get wider rectilinear lenses for FF than are available for S35. And for a cheap guy like me, i can get high quality full-frame lenses and use the full FOV such that the focal length makes sense (and there are many handsome vintage lenses available for the format like my Leica M 21mm which wouldn't be a proper wide angle on S35).

And low-light capability is awesome for doc (and certainly wedding) shooting. Same goes for fx6/fx9.

Horses for courses! I don't see as much value added to MF but then again it's not as much of a sensor area increase as S35->FF. Traditionally (and currently) I think it was used mostly for higher resolution. But as they pack more pixels onto smaller sensors, that advantage may evaporate.
 
GFX100S will have a 400 Mbps 4K video. Obviously, it's a photocentric item but it can shoot video as a side job. And it will have those classic Fujifilm emulation looks too.

One also has to assume that, somewhere down the road, Sony will make a medium format model for the high end production. Realistically, it could do it now but it won't compete with Fuji on stills and is playing a waiting game with Venice, which is their well regarded high end offering. On the other hand, Tarantino and Spielberg love their 65mm film. ARRI Alexa65 is a major hit on the super high end rental market also. Sony could match those for under $30,000, had it wanted to. But it's going to do it on its own schedule.
 
I dunno dude...there are a lot of important specs beyond codec/framerate/resolution. And regarding high-end cameras, there are a lot of form factor/ergonomic/accessory compatibility concerns that make or break the camera. (on the low end, just look how people are ripping the fx6 for the lack of evf and audio input on the main body.) I'm not sure the grip of the dominant cameras will be loosened so easily.
 
Ya but they can make the high end camera body in the same form as Alexa or Red. The only difference will be the sensor size but one could use the same 65mm manuals with the same effect. Everything else - media, codecs, etc. - is already out there.

The only thing for Sony is that they're pushing the E-mount and FF as their main standard and FF (Vista Vision) is plenty good for feature films already, while having enough potential to deliver quality 8K too. But, hey, if someone wants 65mm and willing to pay for it, why not? As folks pointed out to me, top portrait photographers had shot with the medium format Rolleiflex and Hasseblad since the 1930's. The street photographers like Doisneau preferred something less intrusive with their 35mm but medium format was dominant in a studio. It's just that digital had to start small - literally - because the technology hadn't been there. But it is now.
 
This is all true. I'm just skeptical that they can pull out a class-leading design when they continue to make such large missteps in so many cameras with regard to use in field. It's not clear to me that they're evolving in the right direction, either. But hey, I guess people like Venice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top