Any thoughts on the soon to be released GFX100RF?

I think it sounds an interesting idea having a fixed lens smallish MF camera similar to the Fuji X100 or Leica Q series. Depending on price, final specs, size, ergonomics etc I could be interested. Even more so if fuji make wide and tele converter options as they do with the X100 series

Although a fixed 35mm lens that would provide a 35mm (28 equiv) at 100mp, 70mm (55 equiv) at roughly 50mp and 140mm (110 equiv) 25mp images - or at least something like that, which gives plenty of printing options even at the 25mp size.

Given that the 35-70 is my most used lens on my GFX50s ii that does sound interesting...

I personally prefer to have the ability to change lenses on a costly camera. I could customise a ILC with a small prime if needed.

I have tried fixed lens cameras in the past, and found that they are not for me.

100MP and no ibis = oof. Here's hoping they don't dedicate a dial to picture effects.

I'm ok with no ibis to be honest. I'm not sure a 28mm equiv needs it as much

Hi,

This is looking more real all the time....

www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-gfx100rf-full-press-release-and-image-leaked/

Stan

This sent me down the path of thinking about how many MP will I ever need and a couple of back of the envelope calcs.

I may be wrong on some assumptions so please put me right.

Lets say one day I have an image that I would like to print 24" x 36". How many MP will I need to guarantee a good result?
It is said 300 DPI is the minimum for photos. So that's 300^2 pixels per square inch x 24 x 36 = 77,760,000 or 78MP - an assumption there that 300DPI translates in both x and y.

I have heard people say that a sharp 20MP image can be blown up to 24 x 36.
The reverse calculation of (20,000,00 / 24 / 36)^0.5 ~ 150 DPI.

So I assume there is plenty of interpolation there but the results can still be OK.

And finally what print size can a 20MP image give at 300 DPI? - about 222 square inches so about 15 x 15 or 12 x 18 or roughly A3

Realistically A3 is probably about the largest I am likely to print but can dream about 24 x 36...

Am I on the right path or way off?

Hi,

Your path is sound. My Epson printer is 360 PPI native. My textile printer is 300 PPI.

I'd prefer to use captured pixels rather than interpolated ones from an upres. And I use the viewing distance of being able to take the entire image in.

I tend to work with legacy photographic print sizes, and prefer the 5:4 aspect ratio. So, say a 16x20" print which is a.pretty good size on the wall. So I want at least 50 MP from a 4:3 sensor and 60 MP from a 3:2 one. I have to crop more off 3:2 than I.do 4:3.

100 MP is more than I need, but it exhibits significantly less aliasing than the 50 MP sensor does.

And there are no more 50 MP sensors to build a camera with these days anyway.

Stan

Thanks for the printing clarification Stan.

Your above comment leaves me wondering why?

Hi,

Because Sony quit building them. No one else had made such. The Pentax, Fujifilm,.Hasselblad
and other medium format cameras and backs which were 50 MP all used thr Sony sensor. And .most of those makers now make just 100 MP models using Sony's sensor. Or, the sister 150 MP one.

Those are better, being Back Side Illuminated rather than Front Side. Which is why I wanted a 100 MP to replace my old 40.MP CCD in my Pentax 645D. That meant a GFX-100 since Pentax decided to not make a 100 MP 645 and let their production end when the 50 MP sensors ran out.

Stan

I don't print, so all these huge MP numbers don't mean much to me.

So it is that my 24" 1920x1200 px monitor serves my viewing needs and is in any case at the limit of my 85 year-old visual acuity, meaning that my Sigma SD9 is quite adequate at 2268x1512 px, i.e. 3.4 MP.

Interestingly I don't find my X100VI limiting at all. It is the most used of my cameras and the only one I took on holiday last year to Tuscany. As a GAS exercise I've gone through all of my images for the last 12 months to see what I haven't used recently and it seems like my X-H2 kit hasn't been out for nigh on 6 months and not been missed, my GFX50 weekly and X100VI pretty much whenever I leave the house, and most times with the WCL attached which gives a 28(ish)mm FF equiv lens which matches the new GFX.

Being honest, i've also accumulated far too much stuff

So, by selling the X-H2 kit, along with an unused laptop and my X100VI mean I can pony up the cash to buy one, assuming its around £5k, but, that also brings a Leica Q3 into the mix.

From what I can see either of the GFX100RF or Leica Q3 have enough mp to give crop images up to 50mm ff equiv which does sound interesting. The Leica does have a f1.7 lens though, which might sway things. So, I could replace my X100VI with one of these Or I can keep the X100VI and have a chunk of money. Decisions decisions

Photographically speaking I'm also changing what I do so want to cut the gear down to just 1 high quality every day carry and a kit based around my GFX50s ii

Hi,

I can't see this one interesting me any. I'll just stick with the GFX-100 and my one GF lens. The 45/2.8. The rest of the lenses here are Pentax 645. The GF lens is far better than the P645 one. Otherwise, the other P645 lenses are fine. Save for AF, but there is an AF adapter coming.

But, this new one is interesting to follow. Very polarizing, as it were. ;)

Stan

I see the beast has been announced and TOP has a brief article.

I wonder about going MF for my Architectural photogrphy, so this camera is of no interest to me as I use shift lenses.

But I do wonder if it is a good move to buy a fixed lens camera at this price. At this level a camera where I can switch lenses seems the most sensible option.

I do wonder why they use digital zoom ( cropping) rather than fitting the camera with a zoom lens. My Lumix LX100 was what I believe to be a good fixed lens concept.