5.24.2019

A Few Thoughts About Fuji's GFX100 and Why I Think This Product Will Change the Commercial Photography Industry (while blunting the sale of high end 35mm sensor cameras).

If the GFX100 performs close to its specifications and features list this camera has the potential to change the higher end of mass photography. It's less expensive, in inflation adjusted dollars, than previous flagship cameras from both Nikon and Canon and it also promises a return to greater control over depth of field, focus ramping and other optical signatures that professionals enjoyed when photographing with medium format cameras in the days of film. While it's true that Leica (S series) and Phase One have continued to offer cameras with the same sensor size they've been priced high enough to be out of reach for a vast number of photographers who still struggle to recover from the downturn ten years ago and the more recent collapse of parts of the overall market for images. Getting a camera down into this price point, along with an accessible selection of good lenses, means that photographers who are able to stretch a bit, financially, will have a system that helps to differentiate them from the majority of practitioners.

There are a number of features that make the GFX100 more desirable to more users than the more expensive offerings from Phase One and Leica. These include in body image stabilization that promises up to 5.5 stops of anti-shake improvement. It's the first of the medium format cameras to offer truly useful focus tracking and it also provides a feature that I think has been the "missing link" for current medium format digital cameras; a great EVF. The camera features Fuji's really good color profiles and, while some people might disparage the use of a 100MP camera to shoot Jpegs (in order to use the DR expansion and color profiles) I would say that they are blinded by the megapixel count and overlooking the fact that the real strength of the larger sensor, for most people, is the different look the longer focal lengths give for the same angle of view.

My first question, when looking at the camera specs was, "Is there a reduced raw file size?" I'd love to shoot raw files at half the camera's maximum resolution while maintaining the potential to blow a client's mind with the full 100 MP resolution for highly detailed shots (not portraits) that would be used at very large sizes.

I'm seriously considering scraping together the cash to get this camera to use as a dedicated portrait camera. I would acquire the camera body and one lens; the 110 mm f2.0. With this sensor size that lens is the equivalent (angle of view) of an 85 to 90mm lens on a smaller format camera, like a Sony A7xx.
With a system like this I'd be able to get back to the look I shot for well over a decade when using Hasselblad and Rollei cameras with lenses from 110mm f2.0 (Zeiss Planar) to the 180mm f4.0 (Zeiss Planar) as well as the more esoteric lenses created for the focal plane series of the Hasselblads, like the 150mm f2.8. I'd spend something like $13,000 for the combination but it would put me right into the sweet spot of the style I made a living with for many years.

I'd continue to use the Fuji X series APS-C cameras for all the things that require fast, light cameras with a wide and high quality selection of lenses.

I applaud Fuji for design touches like the virtual control wheels in the top LCD and the permanent base with room for two higher capacity batteries. There are a few things that I'd change; especially if I were to buy the camera in order to do video. The biggest of these would be to make the HDMI socket a full sized one instead of a micro-HDMI. But all in all, from what I've seen and read, Fuji seems to have gotten a lot of stuff right.

We can argue forever about the price but if the camera allows one to market their imaging business as a top line supplier instead of an interchangeable commodity then the camera investment should pay back the photographer in a handful of bigger production projects.

My company had one project last year that would have paid for the camera, a selection of lenses and still yielded enough profit to also pay the mortgage and all the bills.

Will I rush out to buy one the minute the GFX100 becomes available? Naw. I have too much other stuff on my plate right now. I'm spending a lot of time with my father (hospice is great) and dealing with the extended family's business and financial stuff. But once the camera has been out for a while, in the real world, I'm sure I'll stumble into the spiderweb of desire that Fuji is effectively weaving and end up with one on the top of my favorite tripod. In the meantime I'm still trying to become perfectly comfortable with my 90mm f2.0 on the X-H1.

This is a turning point for working photographers. While the GFX has all the gingerbread people want (phase detect AF, Face AF, AF points across the frame, Super High resolution, and IBIS) the reality is that if your real rationale for owning a camera with this sensor size (geometry, not MP) you can dip down in the Fuji line up of three cameras (all using the same lens mount and batteries) and grab a 50R and a great lens for a little over $5,000 and get the same look for portrait work. All of a sudden medium format digital is accessible to a lot more people than it was two years ago. And it may shine a guiding light forward for camera makers like Nikon who desperately need to regain their old position (branding) as tools made for professionals.

The bittersweet part of all this is that the profit in the business has almost been completely sucked out by changes in media, the economy, crowdsourcing, and ever changing advertising and marketing. I guess the real question is, "Will there continue to be a place in paid work of ever higher quality or would we be better off learning how to make decent work with our phones."

Since I'm past the mid-point in my career I'll vote for optimism. Perhaps recklessly exuberant image quality will be the next big trend. It would certainly be novel across most of today's media.

To the last point in my headline: How will this affect Sony, Nikon, Canon and Panasonic with their lines of high resolution, full frame cameras? If the mantra we always hear when full frame users slag smaller formats ("Clients deserve the very best image quality you can deliver!") holds true and the internet is suddenly full of great work from the larger format cameras, more and more aspiring professionals will want to acquire the bigger format cameras to assuage their own self-doubts. Why invest in a format that anyone can own if you can differentiate yourself with a larger format which would prove the point you've been trying to make to APS-C and Micro4:3 users all the time on the forums? (Not that I think this rationale holds water...).

All kidding aside I think people will see a difference in quality and style. Not necessarily driven by more megapixels but by the different optical effects of larger lenses for the same angles of view. That, and with the 50 megapixel MF cameras, a larger pixel size per overall resolution. Being about to buy a 50 megapixel MF camera for the same or a bit more than a Sony A7Riii or a Nikon D850 AND having a clear upgrade path to the higher resolution/ higher performance body should encourage a lot of photographers to make some hard decisions about what might help them drive their businesses forward. I can tell you right this minute that if my choice was between a high res 35mm style camera or a camera with the same res and a bigger sensor for nearly the same outlay I would not hesitate to go with the bigger sensor.

Am I suggesting that VSL readers rush out and acquire one of these new GFX cameras? Only if you want one. I still firmly believe that most stuff can be well photographed with a one inch super zoom camera from Sony. Can be done even better with a good APS-C system and can be done almost as well with a full frame camera (compared to an MF). Technique, vision and creativity continue to be the defining metrics of success. A new camera might give you new ways to express yourself but it's not going to suddenly make everything you currently point a camera at look magically better. That's down to you and your skills.

20 comments:

amolitor said...

I am finding the lack of interest in this camera almost shocking. Sure, the usual bottom-feeder "photo news" sites are all breathlessly running the press release with a bit of editing, but there just doesn't feel like there's any buzz.

As you note, the story isn't 100 megapixels at all, it's IBIS and the other stuff, with a biggish sensor. It could be 24 megapixels without making a speck of real difference.

It's like they can't decide if they're going after well-heeled idiots, or actual working photographers, and so they sort of clumsily shot at "both?!"

typingtalker said...

"Clients deserve the very best image quality you can deliver!"

The truth is that clients deserve the very best image quality they are willing to pay for. This camera allows photographers to offer better image quality at a slightly lower price than before because their cost of hardware is lower.

It would be interesting to know what portion (percent) of a professional photographer's fixed costs goes to cameras and lenses.

Kirk, Photographer/Writer said...

To Andrew: A quick phone poll of five upper tier professionals in Austin have all indicated that they have pre-ordered the GFX100. I'm inclined to make that number 6. The pros will drive sales but the bulk of sales will come from the usual suspects: dentists, doctors, lawyers, venture capitalists...

To Typing Talker: I would venture to say that gear costs these days, amortized, represent about 5% of a professional imaging business's fixed costs. Ten, if you are in a smaller income cohort.

In a bigger market with higher budgets a one time investment of $15,000 to $20,000 would be fairly easy to justify every three years or so.

Kristian Wannebo said...

Well, so digital has finally reached what handheld analog could do and at a similar price point!
Plus IBIS, so even in low light.

Now, at the other end (where analog struggled):
A word about the need for also a small sensor camera for some professional work
from Ming Thein (in 2012) :

"I’ll never attempt all-in-focus compressed perspectives with an SLR, because I know you just can’t do it without running out of DOF (or shutter speed as a consequence of stopping down for more DOF). But you can very easily do it with a compact superzoom, ... , it’s all going to be in focus anyway. ...

... I’ve shot an entire job for a shipyard client on the compact Panasonic TZ3; they thought I was using the D2H and 70-200/2.8 slung over my shoulder. In reality, I managed to produce work that I never could have done with the SLR – and they were very happy with the result."

https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/03/09/what-influences-your-photography/

Anonymous said...

I think it would be a good match for your skill set. Looking forward to future posts about the camera and how it works with your business model.

Second Avenue Subway said...

The bittersweet part of all this is that the profit in the business has almost been completely sucked out by changes in media, the economy, crowdsourcing, and ever changing advertising and marketing

For good reason. Cameras got "good enough" for stills a long time ago. Particularly for images viewed on typical screens or in typical print sizes. For most people, Facebook and Instagram are the most important target platforms, and I think they max out at 2048 pixels per side.

All kidding aside I think people will see a difference in quality and style. Not necessarily driven by more megapixels but by the different optical effects of larger lenses for the same angles of view

That's possible, but that's also a whole lot of money for pretty small differences. "Technique, vision and creativity continue to be the defining metrics of success" is right.

Malcolm said...

So not megapixels or frame rates but the 'look' you get with a medium format sensor? I had assumed that no-one would want their picture taken with 100 MP - that's too much detail - but you clearly would prefer to use it at lower MP counts. You give the impression using this camera would feel like 'coming home' for you. An interesting take that I hadn't expected, but it does make sense for a pro like you.

Sadly not for me. Even if I won the lottery I'm not sure I'd know what to do with it.

Anonymous said...

Remember though, you need to get two (at least).
Peter Wright.

Mark the tog said...

While I admire what Fuji has done, reflection on my work tells me that it would offer zero to me other than pleasure of a fine tool.

I was thinking of just what I would use such a camera on while waiting for an event to start. Wouldn't use it for events. Wouldn't use it for lifestyle.
I just finished a campaign for a craft bourbon distillery and I used my 5DsR. The client was appreciative of the large files but my tests with a 30MP EOS R were just as nice.
I had originally purchased the 5DsR to impress my architecture clients who enlarge the hero shots to about 8 feet wide for their various offices. However, the prints from my 22MP 5D mkII looked great.

My impulse would to shoot everything in 16bit full res RAW and that means my ongoing storage expenses would not be trivial. Not to mention the computing horsepower required to beat these files into submission.

Yeah, it would be nice. But better to rent than own.

D. Wayne said...

I too lust after this camera but then I think of how much film I could shoot for 10 grand. About 500 rolls by my rough calculations, more if I processed the film myself.

Anonymous said...

I saw a guy walking down Canyon Road (the art road) in Santa Fe last week with two Leica medium format cameras around his neck. I thought that was a bit absurd, but it's his money (and neck.) In any case, I started thinking about MF, and I couldn't think of a reason that *I* would need it, but I'm not a pro. Then I started thinking why a pro would need it. Well, if you go to a shopping center, you see a lot of very large photos where more megapixels would help -- I'm thinking of those larger-than-life shots of Victoria's Secret models and other model/fashion shots. If you do those, I think you'd need MF. But I can't really think of much else where you'd need shots that are both high-res and more five feet wide (or tall), where the photos are not only big but viewed close-up. The overwhelming majority even of pro shots would be used, I think, in hand-sized print products or on-screen advertising, where MF would be no help at all. And here's an actual question -- could you use FF or your present Fujis to get that MF "look" by doing something in Photoshop? (I don't know the answer to that question.) To me, it seems like after some analysis, MF is a will 'o the wisp that would only deliver in very rare cases, or, for most pros, never.

On the other hand, if this is basically a case of GAS, well then, your humble correspondent just spent $2k on his fourteenth guitar.

--John Camp

tnargs said...

It is a mini-MF sensor size, though, with a crop factor of only 1.25 compared to FF. I don't consider it a difference worth having.

Attributing to this camera the visual qualities of real Medium Format emulsion size, and the lens perspectives of those cameras, is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Edward Richards said...

The sensor in this is as close to 35mm as to 2 1/4. A 110 is a long way from a 180 - are you going to see enough of a drawing difference for it to be visible to clients? Isn't that drawing difference somewhat exponential, i.e., there is a bigger difference going from sort of MF to real MF?

You have made a powerful case over the years that few clients are doing media that needs much more than that 1" sensor. Snap, crackle, pop, and video drive ads now - will anyone other than old MF/LF fans really appreciate the different drawing?

Maybe it would make more sense to become really avant-garde and shoot MF film again.:-)

DGM said...

I really like your style. I have the 50r and carry it with me every day. I plan to keep that as my backup camera. The GFX100 is so compelling for so many reasons, but at my age the primary one is that life is short and this whole photography thing brings me joy.

These Fuji cameras have me spending less time at the computer. Less post processing equals more living. Having grown up with medium format film (Pentax 645), I am getting better results without all the fuss and chemical pollution. Happy camper.

I suspect you will find great joy in the GFX100, I am fairly certain that I will.

TMJ said...

This is all tongue-in-cheek, n'est-ce pas?

Hugh Alison said...

It would be a lot cheaper, and better, to buy a Hasselblad 500CM, 150mm lens and a block of film.

Just like the young hipsters do ;)

Frank Langford said...

Medium format ? I always thought that was 6cm x 7cm or 6cm x 9cm. Still, one could alway buy a old Mamiya 6x7 or a Mamiya 6x9 press. I have used both extensively in the past. Even better a Mamiya 645, that was a nice camera. Pretty sure the large negs or transparencies would scan well. You could have a digital file almost as large as you wanted !!

Think of the money you could save !!

Jason Hindle said...

If you make enough of a living out of photography, this system looks like a good investment. I’ve written elsewhere that Fuji were right to avoid the trap of an increasingly crowded 35mm market.

Jeff said...

I wonder what the limit is for what the aging and well heeled crowd that wants to be at the top of the specs heap (the people in your really prescient reprint) will pay and how much weight they can still carry. Especially for a camera without a red dot.

Anonymous said...

Kirk,
I enjoy reading blog posts by a photographer who is about your age - I think I've been reading his blog for at least 7 or 8 years now. His work is excellent and his writing generally spot on. This is what he wrote a few years back:

"So, what does this mean for the camera industry? It means that incremental improvements in quality no longer mean shit to a huge and restless younger market. They don't care if the image is 99% perfect if the content is exhilarating and captivating. No one cared if the Hobbit was available at 48 fps as long as the story was strong in 24 fps. No one cares if a landscape is perfect if there's a reason for the image of a landscape to exist. No one cares if a model is perfect if the model is beguiling.

...

"What it really means for the camera industry is that the tools they offer the new generation must be more intuitively integrated and less about 'ultimate.' In this world a powerful camera that's small enough and light enough to go with you anywhere (phone or small camera) trumps the huge camera that may generate better billboards but the quality of which is irrelevant for web use and social media. The accessible camera trumps the one that needs a sherpa for transport and a banker for acquisition."

Ok, this comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek but still... You know, the guy who wrote the above made a pretty dang good point too!

Ken