Favorite and Least Favorite Films of the Year

Now that the year’s coming to a close I wanted to reflect on some of my favorites, starting with the some films I loved as well as a few that disappointed.

FAVORITES

1. Oppenheimer

Christopher Nolan’s magnum opus. A utter tour de force in filmmaking. I loved Oppenheimer so much I saw it 5 times. The visuals, the soundtrack, the story, and the superb acting by the stellar cast makes it the standout picture of the year for me. In 70mm IMAX, it was truly a visual and auditory movie-going experience that only the original Avatar could rival for me. I think Cillian Murphy is a shoe-in for Best Actor this year as his portrayal of Oppenheimer is both nuanced and alluring. Great performances by veterans such as Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. add to the tension and urgency of the film’s plot. Florence Pugh’s performance deserves a mention too as she commanded attention in every scene she was in. This is a biopic at its best. It often feels like we’re not watching our favorite actors but real people in the actual time period. From the sets to the wardrobe and the cinematography, it’s like peering through a time portal.

I’d be remiss it I didn’t mention the soundtrack. Ludwig Göransson’s haunting and powerful compositions underline the drama on screen perfectly. The booming and goosebump inducing synths of songs like “Can You Hear the Music” call on mental pictures of atomic explosions, fitting for the subject matter of the film. When I first heard it, I assumed it was Hans Zimmer, but Göransson has made a name for himself off the stellar pieces on the soundtrack. Best Original Score hands down.

I can’t praise the film enough. I sort of credit Oppenheimer with make serious, grounded films popular again and I think the industry is starting to follow suit. After years of superhero drudgery, I think we’re getting back to simpler stories set in real, more natural settings. I welcome it as it’s time for a shift in storytelling for a while. Kudos to all involved with this wonderful film.

2. Godzilla Minus One

This film caught me and apparently Hollywood completely off guard. Godzilla Minus One is not simply your typical giant monster film. Sure Godzilla does wreck shit when he shows up, but the story focuses predominantly on the life of a military deserter as he deals with the shame of bailing on his duty during World War II. Taken place during Japan’s reconstruction after the damage of WWII, the film presents a side of Japan rarely seen in film, at least in the mainstream. The soldier’s story goes from one of survivor’s guilt, shame, and cowardice to honor, repentance, and courage. There’s also a touching love story thrown in the mix. It’s both scary, feel good, and emotional which was not what I was expecting from a Godzilla film.

It also should be praised for showing the big studios how to make a successful mid-budget film. With a budget of only $15 Million, the film has grossed over $78 Million worldwide. Don’t let the low budget put you off, the film looks beautiful and has a very unique visual style. No “zoomer” jump cuts all over the place, just balanced compositions, smooth edits, and steady camera work serving to tell a great story. I can’t praise the film enough. I think many people made the mistake as I did and just assumed it was another Godzilla film. This completely trounces the America Godzilla releases and shows you can tell a big monster film with a human story at its core. Go see it in theaters while you can.

3. The Iron Claw

If Oppenheimer was Christopher Nolan’s best work, The Iron Claw is Zac Efron’s hands down. I know some probably still see him as a Disney kid, but Efron really comes into his own in this touching and tragic story about a wrestling family. Just simple folks in the state of Texas trying to do something great but it all falls apart the closer they get to the goal. Efron’s character takes an emotional pummeling in the film and his depiction of these moments is perfect. Strong yet vulnerable. You root for him, feel terrible for him, hell you wish you could give the guy a hug by the end of it. Holt McCallany’s performance as Fritz Von Erich was great as well reminding me of Allison’s Janney stellar performance in I, Tonya. He may be a sleeper in the race for Best Supporting Actor. The overall cast is just fantastic and I can’t lob a criticism at anyone, top marks all.

Due to the emotional subject matter of the film, I can see it not being everyone’s cup of tea, but Efron and company can be proud of this one. If he doesn’t get an Oscar nom, it will be a tragedy.

4. Bone Tomahawk

An older film releasing in 2015, Bone Tomahawk is a brutal low-budget western starring Kurt Russell alongside one of my favorite actors Patrick Wilson(who I believe is a vampire as the man does not age). Wilson’s character’s wife is kidnapped by a mysterious Native American tribe and Russell, playing the sheriff of the small town, assembles a group of willing and disgruntled men to go on a rescue mission. Apparently this tribe are cannibals so they’re working desperately against the clock to pull of this improbable rescue. Think Predator but set in the Wild West.

Performances are all-great. Matthew Fox deserves a lot of praise here and he plays an absolute badass a la Doc Holliday in Tombstone. Loved seeing him in a more high-profile project. The film is obviously shot in the mountains of Los Angeles and you can tell the budget was pretty tight, but if you can overlook that ,what you find is a film full of brilliant acting, intense moments that will have you on the edge of your seat, and a brutality akin to your favorite horror films. It’s raw and real and I loved every minute of it. I look at it as more of a play with simple sets where the actors can just perform. And they bring it. The Native Americans in the story are BRUTAL. Their deadly and cunning tactics make them a formidable foe for the unsuspecting group. They almost remind me of the Mayan’s depicted in Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto. And they’re ability to hunt is very reminiscent of The Predator. They give way more than they take and make you realize you should never underestimate a tribe even if they’re not using advanced weaponry.

A great film and one of my all-time favorite Westerns.

5. In Cold Blood

Another oldie but goodie. I’d read Truman Capote’s excellent novel years ago and always wanted to see the film. Popping up in my Amazon recommendations I decided to give it a watch and found myself glued to the screen. For a film made in 1967, it feels very modern at times in terms of cinematography and acting. Yet on the other hand, it can often feel like an Alfred Hitchcock film with loads of tension, misdirection, and small details that make you smile when you catch them. Even the order in which the story is told is smart. How does one tell a story about the brutal murder of a family but humanize the suspects? Or give the family the proper respect? In Cold Blood walks this tightrope perfectly depicting a loving, caring family in the path of a murderous couple of lowlifes with troubled pasts. By the end of it, you want them to get their comeuppance, but you also can’t help but wonder what everyone’s life would have been like had they taken a different path.

I loved the film so much I bought it on Blu-Ray. It’s my first film I’ve purchased that’s part of the Criterion Collection and I plan to collect more. Recommended.

Not all was rosey this year with films. I saw several duds, but these two stand out most.

Disappointments

1. Maestro

*sigh* Maestro is my most disliked film this year. Bradly Cooper is…fine in it. Carey Mulligan is fantastic and should get a Best Supporting nom, but the film is just bleh. Self-indulgent and sparse are two words I would use to describe. If I had to sum it up in one word, it would be pretentious. It utterly fails as a biopic. Given the title is “Maestro” and depicts the life of conductor Leonard Bernstein, (You know the composer of such beautiful pieces such as Maria from West Side Story, Candide Overture, and Psalm 148?) the film is pretty light on the actual music. Nor does it bother itself with delving into Bernstein’s connection with music. His passion for the art form. Why did he choose to be a conductor? A composer of music? What is his process? What type of music does he enjoy? The audience is given little in regards to his music in favor of telling his story of being a closeted gay man and the many affairs he had while married to his wife Felicia Montealegre.

Not to say that his secret life isn’t interesting or worthy of study, I don’t think that alone gives us an idea of the man himself. All we get is that he’s smitten with his wife(at least publicly), sneaks around with men, conducts the occasional symphony, and bemoans living this hidden life. Additionally given that Bradley Cooper is on the poster, all in the trailers, he’s not as present in the movie as he should be in my opinion. Compare that to Oppenheimer where the majority of scenes feature Oppenheimer. There are so many scenes where Bernstein is absent and we’re given a glimpse into the other characters lives and thoughts on events, but that precious screen time could have been reserved for more character development or backstory on Bernstein. It almost feels more about his wife than him. If you’re not familiar with the man, you won’t leave this film feeling like you know him or his work. And that to me is why it fails.

To end on a positive note, it’s beautifully shot. The costumes are great. Carey Mulligan is magnificent. I love her hair throughout the film.

2. The Boy and The Heron

I am a Studio Ghibli fan. Like, before it was cool. Don’t be coming around talmbout, my favorite film is “Spirited Away” you casual! Kidding.

But as a fan, it pains me to say that The Boy and The Heron is Miyazaki’s worst film. Full stop. It’s beautifully animated, but the story is an incoherent mess. Events just happen, people appear/disappear and nothing’s explained. The main character’s mother tragically passes away in a fire and he blames himself for not being able to help her. Okay, I’m with you. His father remarries, her sister, who is the splitting image of the boy’s mom and it’s completely glossed over. Then a bird, the titular Heron, starts stalking him eventually leading him to some magical world where he meets his mom as a teenager with magical fire powers. Does he stop to tell her “Hey, you’re my mom. You passed away and I feel all alone. I miss you so much.” Nope, just glossed over and not explored. He spends time in the company of this random old lady, who’s now younger in the alternate world, than he does with the young version of his mom. He has literally no emotional connection to this woman but they chose her to be his main ally on the adventure. Imagine all the possibilities if it was his mom instead. To learn more about her. To tell her what happened. To deal with his grief. We get none of that. It’s just dumb. And critics are applauding it like it’s some though-provoking art piece. It’s dreck and dreadful. Ghibli films are also known for their stellar soundtracks. This one has less music than Maestro. No memorable theme. No memorable characters. It’s just confusing scene after confusing scene. I know it’s Miyazaki’s last film, but I refuse to remember him for this one. Don’t waste your time. Now, time to watch Princess Mononoke for the 1000th time. That’s a movie.

3. Killers of the Flower Moon

I love Martin Scorcese’s films. The Aviator starring Leonardo DiCaprio is both my favorite DiCaprio film and Scorcese film. His films have a unique format, wit, solid acting, and good to great cinematography. From the initial trailer, I admittedly wasn’t all that interested in Killers of the Flower Moon. Which was surprising as I read the book during Covid and enjoyed it. The trailer just looked boring and somewhat typical to me. It was trying to hard to be edgy. And I felt like I’d seen this film before.

Upon finally viewing it, I found it self-indulgent, exploitative, and very insensitive with the ending. I’m usually very cool headed about my response to a film touching on social issues or tragedy, but this one left me miffed. I wanted to see more scenes with Lily Gladstone, who in my opinion should have been the lead. I think choosing to tell the film from the perspective of her conniving husband was the wrong choice. Additionally the film is way too long and starts to feel like a slog after the 2 hour mark. The plight of the Osage people is one that should be told, respected, and prevented from happening again at all costs. But Scorcese’s film isn’t the one to portray the ordeal in the most efficient, insightful, and sensitive manner. A beautiful, but bad film.

Inspite of there being some duds here and there, I think this year was a great year overall for films. Everyone seems so glued to some series or another on streaming platforms, but I still enjoy a great movie. The movie going experience is still fun for me and we’ve been fortunate to get some very inspired films this year. I’m not sure if we’ll have to wait a bit in 2024 due to the strikes earlier this year, but I’m hoping next year is even better.

Can One Be Both Critic and Artist?

Do you think this industry has a thick enough skin where you can criticize someone’s work while also trying to work in the same industry?

Probably not.

I mean, you could criticize, but probably not publicly. They’ll destroy you and “make sure you never work in this town again”.

But screw it, I’m not a fan of Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon. I found it self-indulgent, too long, inconsiderate, and captured entirely from the wrong perspective. I almost walked out of the theater when I saw the ending. I love Scorsese’s films (The Aviator being my favorite. It’s also my favorite DiCaprio film.), but this was not his best work.

I know the critics will applaud it because they don’t want to critique a movie about the calculated and heinous murder of indigenous people. Of course the subject matter is important. The format used to tell their story? Abysmal.

This should have been better. The Osage people deserved better.

Welp, guess I’ll never work in Hollywood.

C'est la vie.

You Have to Do The Work

This is a tough love post.

Rapper SL Jones once said, “Ain’t no way around the grind, to shine, it takes work. Oh you in it for the perks, so you quit it when it hurts…”

I agree with the sentiment.

Oh is a gangster rapper too low brow for you?

Proverbs 13:4 says: “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.” (ESV)

The artist’s path is hard and I question the motivation and intentions of many who pursue it. It looks glamorous from the outside. A lifestyle full of travel, freedom, fame (no matter how small), and millions of dollars. lol, I wish. It’s anything but.

Not every actor becomes Tom Cruise.
Not every photographer becomes Avedon.
Not every singer becomes Beyonce.
Not every athlete becomes Lebron James.
Not every tech bro becomes Elon Musk.
Not every writer becomes J.K. Rowling.

And yet there are countless professional actors, photographers, singers, athletes, tech bros, and writers earning a great living while not being world-renown, well known, multi-millionaires.

So if you’re not one of those, 1%, rare air types, would you still pursue your passion? Do you genuinely love your art? Or are you just in it for something else?

With some people, you can just tell they don’t have a love for the art. Their motivation is fueled by something far less noble. Probably something egotistical like validation from their peers or family, an outlet to pick up girls, to be famous, etc. If they did have a love for it, they’ll endure the grind. It would take up so much of their free time. They’ll put the work in day in, day out. They’ll study their craft, constantly seek inspiration, think of new ideas, and comes up with new approaches to their business/career goals. You’ll see their growth and, year over year, they’ll be much better than before.

I think many get into this field expecting a cake walk. It’s anything but. It’s schlepping gear around, being paid less than what you’re worth, messing up on a big job, dropping the ball on a great opportunity, colleagues being flaky, creating something amazing yet no one cares, and feeling like you’re in this seesaw battle of winning and losing week after week. One week you’re up and the next you’re down. This especially applies to those just starting out.

It won’t always be this way, mind you. But in order to get there, you can’t avoid the work.

Unless you’re a nepo baby, there’s no inheriting success.You have to work for it and you should WANT to work for it. The work you put in will make you appreciate the successes you obtain, no matter how small. But if the grind is too hard for you, you don’t feel validated, financially secure, admired by your adoring fans, then get a job. No one cares to hear you whine incessantly, act bitter or jealous, or just be downright insufferable to be around because you’re not where you want to be.

Don’t make friends with self-pity.

Put your head down, nose to the grind stone and do the work. Once you look up again, you’ll be amazed at what you’ve created.

And before I go…

But you have to do the work.

Hope you enjoyed this post!

Walking The Tightrope of Multiple Disciplines

Like the start athlete with loads of potential, the artist often finds themselves battling indecisiveness. Athlete Bo Jackson comes to mind. That guy could do it all. But football ultimately won out. How does one decide on just ONE discipline?

One only has to look at the creative output of Leonardo Da Vinci to see how one person can have interests in numerous disciplines. In Da Vinci’s case his output was matched with a masterful hand as if he had focused solely on each of his disciplines for decades. That’s rare indeed.

Surely you’ve heard the statement, “Jack of all trades, master of none.” That’s often the case for the artist who dares branch out into something else. I get it, we’re only given an finite amount of time so it must be used wisely and skills require practice. Practice demands time. So it’s understandable how one can attempt futilely to juggle multiple disciplines only to come out average at others and perhaps exceptional at only one.

As I ruminate over my own work, I often feel myself walking along a tightrope of multiple disciplines. Or perhaps I’m walking on a singular tightrope and juggling, but the more interests I have the more objects I’m given to juggle. If I juggle too many, I’ll undoubtedly fall.

*Me

It can be hard balancing it all and I used to find it very frustrating. Paralyzing even. To the point I wouldn’t put any work out. How would my beauty work feature alongside my nude work? Or my nude work alongside my swimwear work? On my website it’s very easy to categorize, but I find it awkward when trying to do the same thing on social media, especially Instagram.

However, because something is difficult, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Like the photographers I look up to, your Richard Avedons, your Irving Penns, they too worked in different disciplines. Especially Penn. He was known for fashion and portraits and still-life and nudes. Being considered one of the greatest and most successful photographers of all time, I don’t think he did too bad for himself.

So like Mr. Penn and many other artists with a similar short attention span and numerous interests, I will continue to juggle as I walk along the tightrope. If I were bad at any of the other interests I have, I would drop that object and no longer juggle it. I tried my hand at still-life years ago and the images were fine, but I wouldn’t consider myself good at it. I dropped it. I tried real estate photography and was just okay. Plus, I didn’t enjoy it. Dropped it.

But photographing people? I am good Rooster. I’m very good.

And I thoroughly enjoy it.

So I’ll continue to shoot portraits, nudes, swimwear, beauty, and street photography. I’m sure my audience of clients, models, photography enthusiasts, and art lovers can find the specific thing they like somewhere in that collage of creativity.

There’s something for everyone.

Life’s too short to place limits on ourselves based on degree of difficulty or plain ol’ fear. Yet it’s also too short to do everything. Like the person in my tightrope analogy, it’s all about balance.

It’s okay to juggle multiple disciplines. It can breath new life into you as an artist. It can keep things interesting. And maybe you’re good at more than one thing. Critics be damned.

But remember, you’re human, not an octopus.

Show off.

Hope you enjoyed this post!

An Honest Review of the Fujifilm GFX 100 II

After a botched pre-order from Best Buy, I managed to get the new Fuji GFX 100 II via B&H on release day (September 28th, 2023). To my surprise they had plenty in stock. They aren’t just flying off the shelves as people anticipated after the announcement. Given the fact the camera was announced only 2 weeks prior to release and costs $7500, it’s not shocking many people just don’t have that kind of money lying around to spend on a camera. If you’re not already invested in the system, that could end up being well over $10,000 when you factor in a GF lens or two. And of course there are other factors that will always prevent people from buying into the system which I’ll cover later in this post.

The following will detail my use of the camera. The positive, negatives, and if the GFX 100 II is the right camera for me. Hopefully it will help you make an informed purchasing decision. After owning the camera for a couple of months, here are my thoughts:

• The GFX 100 II is by far Fuji’s best GFX design. The body seems to have been made with such care and purpose. We get more function buttons, an incredible EVF(similar to the one on the Sony A1 that I loved), a beautiful top LCD that makes reading information a breeze, and ergonomics that make holding the camera feel comfortable in the hand. This was clearly designed to be a workhorse. It feels like holding a fine piece of machinery with its metal-like veneer. When they say the camera is a tool, the 100 II lives up to the sentiment.

Beautiful new design. I love the new textured finish and the depth of the grip. It feels great in the hand and looks sexy to boot.

• It’s larger and heavier than the GFX 100S. Fujifilm really struck a balance between the design of the original GFX 100 and 100S. If you fused the two together this is what you’d get. As a result, the camera is smaller than the GFX 100, but larger than the 100S. The GFX 100S weighed 900 grams whereas the GFX 100 II weighs 948 grams. Although that may seem like a small difference, you can definitely feel it. I could see the size and weight being off-putting for some, but as someone who’s regularly used the Panasonic S1R(a notably heavy camera) in their day-to-day work, the weight doesn’t bother me in professional settings. Although I will note that it’s markedly bigger than even the S1R(see below). In defense of the GFX 100 II, the extra size and weight feels justified. It is medium format after all, so you do expect a size discrepancy when compared to full-frame. Bigger sensor = bigger camera.

  
  Additionally, the GFX 100 II has added a lot of new features. 8K Video, better IBIS, a new processor, improved autofocus, etc. I’m sure the increased size helps with keeping it all cool under stressful loads. We have to be reasonable with our expectations when it comes to matters of physics.

The Panasonic S1R is already a big camera. The GFX 100 II eclipses it.

• The new function buttons are nice, but I wish they were either a different shape or featured the little braille-like dots you often find on camera buttons that provide you tactile feed back as your finger rolls over it. The “chiclet” design means all the buttons feel the same. It would be nice to be able to differentiate between them without having to look. Raised dots on them would help. Perhaps button 1 has one dot, button 2 has two dots, and button 3 has three dots. A small change that I think could be very helpful.
  
  The Panasonic S1R has a similar 3 button layout, but the buttons are both a different shape and the middle button has two raised dots so you know which button you’re pressing. I know I sing their praises a lot, but Panasonic has the best camera design in terms of functionality. Aesthetics wise, you can argue in favor of other companies, but no one does function better than Panasonic. I’ll also add that I’m glad Fujifilm went with a horizontal layout versus the vertical layout of the custom buttons on the GFX 100S. The vertical orientation of the 100S’s buttons made them sort of awkward to press without looking. Horizontal feels more natural to your finger position when holding the camera.

Notice the braille-like dots on the S1R’s ISO button. Both circular buttons and the raised dots would improve the ergonomics of the GFX 100 II.

The Panasonic makes better use of the rear real estate of the camera. The GFX 100 II could use an additional dial as well as less flush joystick, but overall the ergos are great.
I also prefer the rounded eyecup design and top plate on all my cameras.

• The optional battery grip is welcome. The new grip is a bit expensive, but worth it if you’re a portrait shooter like me. While I don’t mind large cameras, I do prefer the grip being optional versus the single body design of cameras like the Nikon Z9 or original GFX 100. If I’m spending over $5000 I want a more versatility in my camera. Being able to take the grip off means I’m much more likely to carry it with me on trips or just out and about. Good job Fuji.

The new battery grip features the same texture and button design as the GFX 100 II’s camera body. The integrated grip of the original GFX 100 was a huge oversight.

• Ergonomically, it’s fantastic. I know I mentioned the weight, the shape of the custom function buttons and a few other minor things, but ergonomically, I think the GFX 100 II is fantastic for medium format. The grip feels natural and deep enough to hold comfortably. The plethora of custom function buttons makes customizing for your specific needs a breeze. I have little need to go into the menus again because practically all the features I use are mapped to a custom button. Combined with the GF 50mm f/3.5 lens it’s fairly easy to carry around despite the size when compared to smaller camera options.

• Improved operational speed makes it less cumbersome to use. For years medium format was synonymous with not only slow shooting speed, but slow operational speed. The concerns diminishes significantly with the GFX 100 II. It feels more responsive than previous models and other medium format cameras in general. It turns on quickly, the menus operate fast, and touch functionality is reactive and accurate. I took it for a walk around Chinatown and I smiled when I noticed just how fluid operating the camera was. I could switch between Film simulations, exposure metering modes, and focus modes with little effort. No delays or weird UI lag like previous models. That really made me realize the GFX 100 II is the most mature GFX model yet. The lack of weird operational quirks or slow response mean it’s ready for primetime.

• Autofocus (especially Eye-AF) has been improved across the board. Autofocus was definitely one of the areas holding the previous GFX cameras back. As someone who has embraced Eye-AF, I was very disappointed with the feature on the GFX 100S. In my opinion, it was downright unusable and very unreliable for professional work. Not so with the GFX 100 II. Taking the same autofocus features of the wonderful Fujifilm XH2-S, autofocus is greatly improved. Eye-AF is now fast and reliable. While not as snappy as, say the Sony Alpha 1, in my opinion Fujifilm’s Eye-AF integration here is more reliable than the A1. With the Sony A1, I often found it focused on an eyelash. Fujifilm’s version hits the actual eye 9 times out of 10. Of course autofocus performance will also be affected by lens selection. The new GF 55mm f/1.7 performs wonderfully. I did get some hiccups using the older GF 50mm f/3.5, but overall the autofocus is up to par and will cover all but the most demanding situations. A sports camera this is not, but models walking towards the camera or for general portrait use, it more than suffices.

• In terms of image quality, it’s pretty much the same as previous GFX cameras. Sharp, lifelike images. To my eye, the images are sharper than those produced by the GFX 50S II and the 100S, but I notice no significant difference in color or rendering versus the previous cameras. This is to be expected, but it would have been nice if Fuji wowed us with updated color science or something significant in the image quality department besides better high ISO performance. I don’t find myself shooting at high ISOs often so I can’t comment on this versus previous cameras in the GFX lineup. Overall, the image quality is what we’ve come to love about medium format and specifically the GFX. In one word, brilliant. The detail you’ll notice in things like fabrics or the crispness of leaves on a tree will make other formats feel a bit flat by comparison. With the cameras improved ergonomics and speed, it kinda makes you want to capture everything on medium format. When you photograph a loved one or just your lunch with another camera, you’ll be wondering “What if I would have shot this on the GFX?”

• Fuji REALA-ACE isn’t a big deal. It’s nice to have a new film simulation, but I’m not impressed with REALA-ACE. It’s just “meh” to me. It doesn’t pop like other simulations or mute the colors in some interesting way. It’s just sort of there and I don’t see myself using it that much. Speaking of film simulations, besides ACROS, PROVIA, and VIVID, I don’t find myself using them for professional work. For skin tones, I think Astia or even Eterna are the best options for professional work. Eterna is flat, so you’ll have to make some adjustments. But if you want a starting off point, I think Astia is the most natural looking. Simulations like Chrome give the image too much of a vintage “look” and doesn’t look like real life which is what I prefer. I also have access to a library of filters I use in Capture One and Lightroom that will give me my desired color palette without changing the tone of the image too much. Despite all of the simulations, I wish Fujifilm would have included a more “lifelike” color profile instead of the film filter look that seems to be standard on all their cameras. It can be difficult to get accurate skin tones at times with the GFX. Something like what the Hasselblad X2D produces or Panasonic’s Natural profile would be great. Call it “Fujifilm Natural”. Engineers get on it!

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

• The black-and-white images are incredible. While others camera manufacturers have their own black-and-white presets and, to varying degrees, they’re pretty good. The GFX 100 II combined with Fujifilm’s wonderful ACROS simulation produces some of the most film-like images I’ve ever seen coming from a digital camera. Deep shadows and milky highlights make it an excellent choice for shooting black-and-white images. The images look ripped from the past, almost movie-like.

Mass, c. 2023
The layers of people and their expressions makes this one look like a Renaissance painting.
The GF 50mm f/3.5 Lens is probably the best option for GFX street photography. It’s a great focal length for both portraits and wider shots like this.

The Last Time We Talked, c. 2023

Fences, c. 2023

• The modular design gives it added versatility. Originally I didn’t see the big deal of being able to remove the EVF, but once I did, it dawned on me, “Wow, this is kinda like a large Sony FX3!” It packs down in my bag much easier and when I want to take the camera out for some fun snapshots, taking the top off like a convertible is a great option. I can even keep the EVF in my bag just in case I want to shoot in a more traditional manner. I do think Fujifilm could have improved the rear LCD (better resolution, slightly larger, etc.), but it’ll do for most things.

“Covertible” mode. Taking the EVF off makes the camera much more compact for a camera bag. It also seems less obtrusive and, in some ways, more fun to use.

• The EVF blackout is about the same from previous GFX cameras. This is an area Fuji could have improved on to make the shooting experience a bit more pleasurable. My work around has been setting my drive mode in Low Speed Burst Mode. This all but eliminates the EVF blackout and also increases my shooting speed. If you’re shooting in Single Shot mode, the blackout may be an annoyance to some.

• The joystick is pretty similar to the one implemented on the GFX100S. While it feels more durable(a definite plus), it’s still recessed too low. It should protrude just a bit more to give you an increased feeling of control. Right now, it’s pretty nubby feeling. I wish they would have brought back the four way selector to give us even better menu control. Seems like the camera manufacturers giveth and they taketh away with odd little design decisions that no one asked for.

• I think Fuji’s menu system could use an update. Namely some splashes of color in the UI. It’s been the same boring gray UI for years now. For a company renown for its color, you’d think they would have some flourishes of color in the UI. Nope, boring old gray. Color also helps differentiate the different areas of the menu. It could use a more modern overhaul. Thankfully with the amount of function buttons and the Quick menu, I don’t see the need to dive into the menu on a regular basis.

• No touch shutter. Not gonna gripe on this one too long, but why? Why isn’t this just a standard feature on all cameras that have a touch screen. It’s a software feature, so it should be easy to add via firmware. Such a weird oversight.

Finding a Use Case

While the GFX 100 II is a brilliant camera in terms of specs, image quality, etc. there’s always the question, “What is this camera best suited for?” In theory, you could use it for everything, but is it best suited for everything? Probably not.

I can’t speak for other artists, but for my use case, I see the GFX as being a camera for creative/important work. I.e., work where a client demands that size or work you deem important enough to want to archive. I do a lot of volume work in my headshot photography business and I wouldn’t dare use the GFX on a job where I’m photographing 50-100 people. I’d end up with about 500GB of images to sift through. While I have plenty of hard drive space, that doesn’t mean I should be in a rush to fill it up. And clients won’t even care about the perceived better image quality.

In my opinion, the GFX is better suited for low volume, creative work. In my case that would be portraits, swimwear, nudes, beauty, etc. It would be great for landscape work too. It could be used for street photography, but manage your expectations. It’s not small and discreet. It isn’t blazing fast, but doable for street and the images are gorgeous. People use the Leica SL2 for street photography and they rave about that camera, so don’t be unfair when viewing the GFX as a potential street camera. It’s not meant to be small and it’s not meant to be fast like a sports camera. So it shouldn’t be criticized for being something that it isn’t.

Advertising work is an obvious use for it because that’s often a big creative project. Those clients will appreciate the flexibility in cropping with all the resolution you’re given. I could also use it for individual portrait/headshot clients, just not high volume work. The files are just too big and there are cameras that are much better suited for that sort of project.

Fuji could fix this by offering different RAW size and/or compression options. Nikon does it and Sony implemented it in the A1 last year. I believe Canon does it as well. Regardless, there is a need for a smaller RAW file. Imagine having a 102MP camera, but you can get a RAW file the size of a 50MP file? Or 30MP file? And all without a loss of quality. That would enhance the versatility of the system. I’ve mentioned before that I think Fuji wants to convince people to buy their 50MP medium format cameras, but I’d rather just have a single 102MP camera and be able to set my RAW file sizes according to the project.

Full-Frame Is Still Its Biggest Competitor

Though I am one to tout the virtues of medium format, I still love full-frame cameras. They offer a versatility that medium format will never be able to. For many, they’re a perfect combination of size, performance, and image quality. Since my work is quite diverse at times, having a set of full-frame cameras is very helpful. For volume work, the occasional event, real estate photography, etc. my full-frame cameras are the better choice.

In my last post I mentioned having my Panasonic S1R’s up for sale. I’ve since sold them and moved on to another system entirely. More on that near the end of this post.

A tangent about the Panasonic S5 II/IIX:

I briefly had the S5IIX, but didn’t enjoy using it(or the previous S5 camera) for stills. I found the viewfinder small and the ergonomics lacking in some key areas. Also, there’s an issue with the battery grip which I’ll detail below:

“The S5II and S5IIX use the same grip as the original S5. However, the joystick on the grip doesn’t function the same way as the joystick on the camera itself. Namely, if you’re using eye autofocus, you can click in the joystick and it will switch from one eye to the other. This is extremely useful during portrait sessions. However, when the grip is paired with either camera, if you click in the joystick, it does nothing. It doesn’t switch eyes or allow you to manipulate the focus point in any way. I believe this issue is due to the joystick on the new cameras being an 8-way joystick design, but the joystick on the grip is still the old 4-way design as on the original S5 camera itself. However, I don’t see how clicking in the button on the joystick would be different whether it’s 4-way or 8-way. But unfortunately, the joystick on the grip is only for navigating the menus. It doesn’t have the same functionality as the camera’s joystick while actually shooting which is a bummer. And at $339, it’s overpriced to have such operational quirks.”

Comparatively, I never had any of those problems with the S1/S1R. Don’t get me wrong, the S1R’s were great. I’d taken well over 100,000 pictures on the S1/S1R cameras over the years and they always wowed me in the image quality department. Beautiful color, great ergonomics, and they’re just reliable.

My issues with the system have more to do with Panasonic’s lack of effort in the market and quickly becoming what I consider a dying system. Leica will remain, but I see Panasonic bowing out of the market in a few years. They just can’t keep up with the competition, unless they release a homerun of a product that turns things around in the next year or so.

End tangent.

Full-frame is often smaller, faster, more versatile, and includes many more lens options so no matter what or how you shoot, you can rest assured there are options at your disposal. And in terms of image quality? While it will never “be” medium format, for many, it’s close enough. 90% is a percentage I can live with and I’m sure many others feel the same which is why they don’t switch.

Not Flying Off The Shelves

Now that hype surrounding the GFX 100 II has died down, especially after the initial product announcement, I want to briefly discuss why medium format will remain a niche market. It’s not for everyone. Influencers and lovers of the format will try to sell you on it, but I’m a realist and will openly admit, it wouldn’t be my first choice if I were buying a camera system for the first time. I’ve been a professional photographer for almost 20 years and I’m blessed to be in a position where I can sometimes afford the latest gear. But for many out there, $7500 is a bridge too far.

Besides the price, there are other reasons many will skip the GFX 100 II like:

• It’s heavy. There’s no sugarcoating it. The camera is beautiful, but it will weigh you down. I went for a walk and found it to be noticeably weighty in my camera bag. Combine the GFX 100 II with the GF 55mm f/1.7 and you have a 4-5lb combo that you really feel on your shoulders. The weight and size of the camera alone will put many people off and that’s totally a fair critique of the system. On set, it’s fine. But when you take it outside the studio, it feels like a burden at times. There is the GF 50mm f/3.5 as a lightweight option, but the setup still feels large. If Fuji releases a set of f/3.5, small primes, I think they could make the system more appealing to non-studio photographers.

• It’s slow(ish). The improved frames per second is a welcome addition, but the GFX 100 II still pails in comparison to similarly priced full-frame cameras. Fujifilm put out several videos showing the camera used in sports and action settings, but I doubt many will use it in that capacity. There are much better options like the Sony A9 III, Nikon Z9 or Z8, Canon R5, R6II, or R3. Many full-frame cameras on the market are just faster all across the board and that’s not an attribute we should scoff at.

• The files are huge. 102 Megapixels is impressive until you’re looking at terabytes of data from a long session. Many photographers don’t need or even want 102 megapixel files. It’s interesting to pixel peep, but if you’re shooting constantly, the large files can be a bit worrisome in terms of storage. Hard drives are cheap I hear you say, but don’t forget those large files will slow down your computer. Try retouching in Photoshop and having a file with several layers with lots of edits and effects, your computer’s fans will be revving up in no time.

• It’s expensive. The GFX 100 II costs $7499. Add in another lens, say the GF 110mm f/2, which will cost you $2699. Now you’ve spent over $10,000. The grip will cost you $600. Another lens, say the 32-64 f/4, will cost you another $1500-$1800. You can end up spending upwards of $15,000 investing in the system. If you have disposable income to splurge or you’re a pro who can justify the acquisition then this doesn’t apply to you. But for the penny pinchers out there, beginners, hobbyists, or those where budget is a real concern, there are cheaper options that are available. Great options that will produce more than good enough images for you and/or your clients. And trust me, clients don’t notice and they don’t care. As long as you can produce the images you’re known for, it doesn’t matter what you’re shooting with. I switched camera brands probably 5-6 times in the past 4 years and my clients were none the wiser. They don’t care. And if you really want to invest in the system check out the GFX 50S II. It’s much more affordable and also produces brilliant, medium format images. Or save yourself some money, and rent it on an as needed basis.

• Not everyone cares about “ultimate” image quality. For many, having a camera that produces images that are 85-90% of what the GFX 100 II can do is more than enough. In their mind, their Canon R5, Nikon Z8, Sony A7IV more than covers their needs. You also probably don’t care about ultimate image quality when just taking snapshots while hanging with your friends or of your pet or kids just running around the house. There are smaller, faster, and more fun cameras better suited for this. Not to mention they all cost significantly less. Speaking of which…

Fujifilm also wants to sell you on the idea of investing in their APS-C cameras as an alternative to their medium format options. So when you want ultimate image quality you can use the GFX, but when you want a smaller size with benefits such as faster frames per second, better autofocus, etc. you can use, say, the Fujifilm XH2-S. Unfortunately, APS-C doesn’t hold a candle to full-frame. The images don’t render the same. APS-C doesn’t handle highlights and shadow detail as well as full-frame does. I shot the XH2-S exclusively for months and the images pailed in comparison to the images I’d captured on my full-frame Panasonics. It actually surprised me as I’d wrongly assumed APS-C was on par with full-frame. It’s not.

If you need a system that more closely matches medium format, full-frame is the closest on the market. With APS-C cameras costing upwards of $2500, one could easily pair their GFX 100 II with a Sony A7IV or Panasonic S5IIX with much better results. Spend a little bit more and you can get great options from both Canon and Nikon as well. Full-frame, in my opinion, is the better companion to medium format and Fujifilm doesn’t have any cameras in that space.

So regardless of how much people will scream on forums or the FujiRumors guy writes countless articles on how amazing the GFX is and you should get one, think long and hard before you buy one. Most of these outlets just want to get an affiliate kickback after you click their links. They don’t own the camera and probably never will. They just want YOU to spend YOUR money so THEY can make money.

Ask yourself. Is the GFX 100 II right for you? What benefit will it really give you? Can you afford it? Is the money better spent elsewhere? Do you really need it or do you just have G.A.S.?

The GFX 100 II is a great step in making medium format more accessible and pleasurable to shoot with. But it still presents many of the same challenges unique to the format. A truck will never be a car. And a fork isn’t a knife.

So Did I Keep It?

No. I didn’t. After owning it for two months, I sold the GFX 100 II. Despite all the praise outlined above which is still valid, there were a few issues that made me ultimately pass on keeping the system. They are:

1. Image size. I keep repeating that 102 megapixel images are overkill. If Fuji had compressed RAW options for the camera this would be a moot point and it would be worth keeping. But giving the type of work I do, the sheer volume of it at times, having such large files is more of a burden than a positive.

2. Color. As I mentioned, it can be hard to get accurate skin tones on the GFX. I think this applies to all of Fuji’s cameras as Fuji seems to apply a certain look to their files. Skin tones can look a bit unnatural. I’ve heard photographers say Fuji is great for scenery but not so much for people and I would agree with this sentiment. When color accuracy is important there are better options available. Of course you can tweak things in post, but the fewer steps needed the better.

3. It doesn’t bring me joy. While it’s much more fun to use than previous GFX models, I personally just don’t enjoy using it. This is totally a subjective thing. I find it heavy, the menus are ugly, and I don’t like the sound of the shutter nor how the lenses sound when they focus. This seems like such a small thing, but I’m very big on user experience. BMW spends millions on small user experience things such as hiring a composer for the sound of the doors closing on their cars. I compared the sound of the shutter of the GFX to the Panasonic S1R and the S1R is much more pleasing to the ear. It’s a small, but major thing. It’s nice to hear a satisfying sound in your ear when you take a shot. Even if the shot is awful, it feels like you nailed it! In the looks department, the body is great, but the menus are ancient. It’s like Fuji is stuck in this weird place between the future and past. The body is from the future, but the UI is from the 80s-90s. Which is weird as the top LCD readout looks more futuristic than the menus themselves. The blackout is still there. The joystick is still bad. And when you pop a GF lens on it, it still feels like a brick. Despite my best efforts, I just didn’t connect with the camera in the way I’d hoped to.

Honestly, I’m probably done with medium format. It was the mythical area of photography to strive for a decade ago, but these days there are plenty of great options in smaller formats that are more fun to use. Medium format doesn’t make or break my style nor does it give me any advantages over my competition. It’s just wishful thinking, but not reality. I’m at a stage in my career that I want to have gear that I enjoy using and it makes the entire experience of photography from capture to post feel fun. After doing this as long as I have, it can be hard to keep that fire burning and slow, heavy equipment probably won’t stoke the flames. So if not the GFX or the Panasonic S1R what camera system did I end up switching to?

Enter the Sony A7RV

From the multi-angle rear LCD, diminutive size, shooting speed and images oozing with sharpness and depth, the A7RV is a tour de force of image making bliss.

After much speculation, pondering, and testing, I decided to go back to Sony. It’s been well over a year since I owned the Sony Alpha 1 so there were other options available that weren’t there before. It came down to the A1(again) or the more recent A7RV. I considered Canon’s R6 Mark II for a second, but the limitations of Canon’s system when compared to Sony took it out of the race. Namely, third-party lens support.

I didn’t want to spend so much on another A1, so the A7RV was the most likely candidate but I hadn’t used one before.

I went to B&H to test the camera in person and immediately fell in love with it. I purchased one right away.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

The A7RV is an amazing camera and it ticks all the boxes for me. Let’s break it down:

1. 61 megapixels with compressed RAW options. I can shoot a 61MP file when I want the resolution. A 26 MP file when I want something smaller. And even a 15MP file when I want something smaller still. I’ll never use 15MP, but being able to switch between 61 and 26 megapixels on the fly feels like having two cameras in one. I don’t have to have a fragmented system like owning both an S1R (45 megapixels) and S1 (24 megapixels) like in the past. One camera does the job of both.

2. AI Autofocus. The new autofocus features on this camera are brilliant. Fast, accurate, and reliable. Unlike the Sony A1, the A7RV hardly ever inadvertedly focuses on an eyelash. It’s just pinpoint accurate 99% of the time.

3. Shooting speed. The GFX 100 II is fast, but pales in comparison to the A7RV which is faster still. I don’t really use burst modes, but if I wanted to, it gives me plenty of speed for anything I’d shoot.

4. Image quality. I feel embarassed to say it, but the image quality of the A7RV has exceeded my expectations. When it was first announced, I dismissed it thinking it couldn’t come close to medium format. Boy was I wrong. There’s a depth to the images that give it an almost medium format like look, especially with the right lenses. I did headshots for a client recently and immediately the image quality difference was apparent when compared to the Panasonic S1R, a camera I’ve always lauded for having exceptional image quality. The A7RV beats the S1R which puts it even closer to medium format. It’s still behind, but more than close enough.

5. Color accuracy. Sony’s doesn’t normally receive praise for its colors, but the A7RV’s color feels much more natural and realistic compared to the GFX(or any Fujifilm camera for that matter). I have to do less tweaks to get it to match the scene in front of me.

6. Shutter sound. It’s not as satisfying as the A1’s, but the shutter sound is quite satisfying. It’s like eating a Pringles chip. Every crunch of the shutter feels like you’ve just captured an award winning photograph. I LOVE the sound while shooting with it.

7. Size and weight. The size and weight of the entire system (camera, grip, lenses, etc.) feels like such a burden lifted off my shoulders. Putting my kit in my case when heading to client’s location feels are less cumbersome. I can even comfortably shoot with one hand when I just want to do snapshots of things. Brilliant.

8. Small, light, and fast. This trio of characteristics is my new standard for cameras and the A7RV matches it in all categories. Small, light, and fast makes the camera more enjoyable for me to use. A smaller size means it can pack easily in a variety of bags. Reduced heft means I can carry it all day. And speed makes getting the shot that much easier. I can’t stress enough how important this is to the joy of using a camera system for me.

Other features that appealed to me:

• The 4-Axis Multi-angle LCD screen. Not only does it flips out as well as flips up. I know Sony shooters want to give Sony sole credit for this design, but as far as I know, the Panasonic S1H was the first full-frame camera with such a design. Give Panasonic their props.

• 9.4mm-Dot EVF. The same as in the A1 and similar to the GFX 100 II’s. One you experience one of theses, it’s hard to go back to a smaller, lower resolution EVF.

• 10 fps shooting. Not as fast as, say the A1, but it’s plenty fast for me.

I haven’t really considered using it for video, but I could if I wanted. It’s really a versatile camera that excels at practically everything I could use it for.

A7RV Photos

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

In Closing

The GFX 100 II is a camera I could easily recommend to anyone wanting to dip their toe into medium format. It feels like the maturation of the GFX system. It’s a culmination of years of testing, gathering user feedback, and a willingness to improve the system in key, dare I say vital, areas. The brilliant new EVF, vastly improved autofocus, operational speed, and ergonomics make it a home run release for Fujifilm. And I didn’t even touch on the video features! If you have a previous GFX model, I’d consider it a worthwhile upgrade. Fuji really threw the kitchen sink at this one.

However, many of the criticisms (which I’ve made for years), still apply. Mainly size, weight, and speed. And that’s just physics. You can’t have everything ya know. Plus the lack of RAW file size options limit it’s practicality in many situations. Oh, and it’s expensive.

It’s not for everyone and that’s okay. It doesn’t have to be. It wasn’t for me, but there’s no need for me to dump on it. If I have a need for medium format, whether it be a special project or client request, I’ll pick the GFX 100 II every time.

I ultimately stuck with full-frame, namely the Sony A7RV. It ticks all the boxes for me and allows me to create the images I want, faster and easier than the GFX 100 II. Simply put, it matches my shooting style better. And that, to me is significant.

Your results may differ.

I hope you found this review helpful.