A collection of musings for the week. Today I’ll be talking about Fuji’s announcement of the GFX 100S II, buying another 50S II, the 50S sensor versus the 100S sensor for people, and some upcoming travel plans.

It’s funny how things can happen at the weirdest times. Yesterday, Fuji announced the successor to the Fuji GFX 100S, the GFX 100S II. This comes about 8 months after the release of the GFX 100 II. And almost a month after I bought another GFX 100 II after I sold the original one I bought last year. As any curious, obsessed photographer would do, I skimmed the spec sheet and product description of the new release. “Faster, best image quality, improved, etc.” You know all the usual marketing buzz surrounding a camera.

The announcement came literally as I was on the phone with B&H customer service getting a return authorization for the GFX 100 II. Not because I’m going to ditch medium format again, but because I just don’t like the files from the camera. I’ll pause for the collective gasp from the audience before continuing. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the sensor from the 50S makes better images than the newer phase detect autofocus sensors of the GFX 100 series cameras.

No matter what I try, I can’t replicate the same tonality, contrast, and look of the 50S image which looks more akin to film. The GFX 100S and 100 II images look more digital. Of course it has higher resolution, is sharper, subjectively better color (14bit vs 16bit), but the image itself? The 50S sensor beats it. Maybe it’s the increased sharpeness and lesser contrast that does it? I’m not an engineer, but I’ve read there are image quality differences between sensors that feature contrast detect autofocus versus sensors with phase detect autofocus. And to my eye, especially when I tweak the images, the files of the 50S are more malleable and respond to changes better. Even skin tones have a noticeably more supple look to them than the ultra sharp look of the 100 megapixel image. Keep in mind, I’m only referring to pictures of people. If you shoot landscapes, your results may differ.

And I’m not the only one with similar findings:

Skip to the "Indoor File Comparison" section and this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I noticed a similar image quality difference when comparing images of the Panasonic S1 (contrast detect autofocus) to the S5II (phase detect autofocus) and the S1 was better. There is a trade off for phase detect autofocus which Panasonic has openly stated for years, but market pressure made them switch to phase detect.

So with that in mind, I set up a return for the GFX 100 II. With all the new bells and whistles of the 100S II, and lower price point, I considered it for a brief moment. I even told the customer service rep I would be doing an exchange of the GFX 100 II to make a pre-order of the GFX 100S II. But as I rode the subway to B&H, I listened to breakdowns of the new camera and you know what? None of the features really appealled to me, at least not enough to spend $5,000.

Video? I’m not shooting video on these cameras. It’s not practical, nor fun. These aren’t production cameras. The GF lenses are terrible for video, rolling shutter is an issue so good luck handholding, it’s heavy so you’ll likely want a tripod. And those restricted frame rate options. IMAX this is not. Sorry, you won’t be shooting Oppenheimer on this thing.

Seriously, if you want to shoot a film, there are better, more practical options like the Blackmagic Pyxis 6K(side LCD be damned). It’s an actual production camera with 6K video and only $3,000. You want autofocus? Sony or Canon have you covered with actual production level cameras. Prefer a DSLR/mirrorless camera style body and IBIS? Try the Sony FX3, S5II, or Fuji’s X-H2S. All more affordable and much more practical for filmmaking. You’ll also have a lot of money left over for other filmmaking necessities like lenses, external monitor, ND filters, etc.

Specs shouldn’t be the only factor you consider when selecting a camera for your artistic needs. A drill is great for screws, but a hammer would be better for nails. An obvious distinction for tools, but cameras are similar. There’s this fallacy in thinking one camera is appropriate for everything. One camera could do everything with a certain degree of effort and difficulty, but that doesn’t mean it’s the most appropriate for the task.

Blackmagic Pyxis 6K. A production camera. No need for ridiculous rigging, it has multiple lens mount options, better exposure tools, RAW recording. It’s cheaper.
When I make another movie, I’m shooting it on something like this.

AI Autofocus? It has this listed in the features, but it doesn’t go into detail on how much better it is for focusing on human subjects. Especially when compared to the flagship GFX 100 II. It just says it can identify other subjects like planes, animals, etc. I don’t need that. If it focuses on and tracks people like the Sony A7RV, now we’re talking but I assume not since they’re being so vague about it. And who the heck uses “Plane” autofocus anyway? It there a big market for plane photography that I don’t know about?
The improved EVF would be welcome, but I’m fine with the lower resolution EVF of the 50S II and original 100S. And in some ways, I think the lesser magnification of the viewfinder helps me compose better. I know that sounds odd, but I found I composed much better with the wider view of the 50S II EVF versus the closer view of the GFX 100 II.
Reala ACE? Who freakin cares. It’s one of the most “meh” film simulations. It feels lackluster and like one they just added to tick a box.
The new styling? It does look sexy, but not $5,000 sexy.

So by the time I reached customer service at the store, I made up my mind and decided to go with the GFX 50S II again. Yes it’s slower and doesn’t have nearly all the bells and whistles of its newer siblings. But you know what, for my purposes, it’s the best option in the GFX lineup. I don’t need to pay the premium for video features I’ll never use. The 100 Megapixels files are already a burden as they eat up hard drive space, take longer to export, and slow down retouching. And they don’t even give me the look I want! Why deal with all the shortcomings and quirks if you’re not even getting the image you seek? It’s just resolution without purpose. The cameras are technically faster, but honestly they don’t feel faster. And none of them are in the same league as my A7RV for speed. For portrait work on the street or in the studio, the GFX 50S II more than suffices. When I need speed and/or video I have my Sony cameras which are my workhorses. And I saved $5,000.

Fuji’s GFX Fragmentation Problem

Fuji currently has three 100 megapixel cameras on the market. The GFX 100 II, the GFX 100S II, and the GFX 100S. I know the 100S will probably be phased out, but there’s really not a lot to differentiate these three cameras. The 100 II has more video functionality, a modular design, and better EVF. The 100S II has less video features, a static design, and modestly lower EVF resolution. The original 100S is a minor step down from the 100S II. And the freakin’ names are making my headspin just typing them out.

The cameras are so similar in terms of feature set, it’s confusing for the customer. And they all produce the same exact image!

And look at the pricing:

GFX 100 II - $7499
GFX 100S II - $4999
GFX 100S - $4399

The 100S II seems like the smarter buy if you really want 100 Megapixels. I don’t even see the value proposition of the 100 II over the 100S II unless you really want the GFX for video. The 100S II is just as fast, lighter weight (the 100 II feels like such a brick), smaller, and creates the same image. And there’s really no point for the GFX 100S if you’re buying new. Just spend the extra $600 and get the updated features.

Pictured: The GFX 50S (left), GFX 100 (middle), and GFX 50R (right). All unique designs, suited for different purposes.

Years ago, Fuji had the GFX 100, the 50S, and 50R. All cameras with different designs, suited for different purposes. Now they have three 100 megapixels cameras that essentially do the same thing. They do something similar with their APS-C cameras as well. They take one sensor and throw it into as many cameras as possible. But in my opinion, it just creates a jumbled, fragmented lineup.

I expect sales of the 100S II to completely eat up sales of the 100 II. Unless some sort of firmware update comes out that widens the gap between the two, I don’t see a point in buying the 100 II over the 100S II. They’re starting to cause confusion in the lineup and that’s never a good sign. It’s like the company is throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

But most people don’t want nor need 100 Megapixel cameras. That’s the domain of specialists. Landscape photographers, still-life photographers. People who archive documents or artifacts for museums. It’s like a 400mm lens. Sure it looks cool having this massive lens on your camera, but it’s a specialist lens more appropriate for wildlife than photos of your kids.

50-60 megapixels is the sweet spot for high-end megapixel cameras that are practical for everyday use. I’m telling you, sorting through dozens of 100 megapixel files of mundane day-to-day stuff is not the way. If they went with a 50-60 Megapixel camera, they could make it faster, smaller, and cheaper. And they would sell like hotcakes. Plus it would actually create a different option in their lineup.

Apparently they’re coming out with a fixed lens GFX camera next year to piggyback off the success of the X100VI. Curious how many megapixels that one will be. Taking bets that it’s 100.

You’re An Engineer, Not An Artist

Your average forum engineer. Prepared to ***smugly*** tell you all about noise performance of the GFX sensor. “Well you know the photons on the sensor show….”
Oh fuck off!

Nothing against engineers, I could never do what they do or think the way they do. In the photographic community, especially in the medium format sector, there are certain people who wax lyrical about the inner workings of sensors, noise performance, sharpness, etc. They post charts and countless sample images of mundane things like brick walls, trees, far away buildings, and expect your average person to be able to interpret their findings. Said findings are meant to give us clarity on the capabilities of the camera. How it performs and why it’s sooo much better than previous and/or comparative models.

I say this: You’re an engineer. Not an artist. Art is not science, it’s magic.

There is a reason kids are drawn to old vintage video cameras over the new cameras with all the bells and whistles. Why zoomers are buying old point and shoots versus the new cameras with better optics and dozens of features. They prefer the “look” of those cameras. Here in NY, I still see countless people walking around with DSLR’s versus mirrorless cameras. At first I thought it was odd, like why wouldn’t you just get a mirrorless these days? But then I understood the preference for a certain look, a certain feel of camera. New isn’t necessarily better.

Filmmakers often clamor for lenses that are inherently flawed. Soft in the corners, vignetting, chromatic aberrations, prone to flaring, etc. That character is important. Character affects the actual image. The art you’re creating. Who cares what the chart says?

People with recency bias will never understand. “But it doesn’t have IBIS or 4K! However could one even create with such a device?”

I’m not saying using old tech is somehow better or more noble. I’m not in that camp. I much prefer digital over film for example. But I am saying, gear, the tools we use, has unique characteristics that affect the art we make. If we judged them on a chart, they wouldn’t rank higher than competing options, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. Nor does it make them any less valuable to the artist than the higher priced, newer item.

Lastly, I’ll add that most of the people that sit in these discussions having bitter arguments about this stuff are men. 99% of them. Women just buy a camera off a recommendation or how it looks and get on with it. They go out and shoot pictures of their friends, do shoots, etc and you’d never even know what they use. The guys sit around getting into arguments over cameras, lenses, charts, what brand is selling better. It’s dumb and immature.

Less charts, more art.

I’m Going to Paris

In keeping with my travel plans for the year, I’m headed to Paris for a 7-10 day trip in June. It’s been a while, but it will be good to visit again. I’ll be attending a workshop, doing some shoots, and of course sightseeing as much as I can. I’ll try to get there twice this year if the old budget allows, but there are other places I plan on visiting.

I don’t pull any punches on my dislike for what New York has become so I’m making a concerted effort to get out of the city as much as possible this summer. Crime and insanity has gotten so ridiculous here that just a couple of weeks ago, I returned from a fun R&R trip, and the very next day, a 16-year old kid got shot and killed right down the street from me. Literally 20 minutes after I ran past the area on my jog. It’s awful. As I’m writing this, they just caught one of the men involved.

Anyway, Paris in June. Then Prague, England, Tokyo, Thailand, and hmmm…maybe Korea if I can swing it. One down, five more to go. Anywhere but New York this summer.

All for now.