Without a doubt, the announcement of the medium format Fujifilm GFX 50S and its revealed price of $6,500 has sent a shockwave across many different photography communities across the world, sparking many discussions and debates about the future of the camera industry. We now have a medium format mirrorless camera that is lighter and more compact than a typical full-frame DSLR, with a price point of a top-of-the-line DSLR like the Nikon D5. Significantly cheaper than any other digital medium format camera on the market today and less expensive than the recently-announced Hasselblad X1D-50c, or even the discounted Pentax 645Z. This is a groundbreaking and brave move on behalf of Fuji, which jumped directly to medium format from its current APS-C X-series cameras, completely skipping over full-frame. In this article, I would like to go over some information on why it may or may not make sense to invest in the Fuji GFX 50S for photographers who have been shooting with Fuji X-series or other full-frame cameras.
Table of Contents
1) Sensor Size
When it comes to camera sensors, we have come to expect to see one typical size when defining a full-frame sensor. For example, we know that every full-frame camera on the market has a sensor size of approximately 36 x 24mm and an aspect ratio of 3:2. However, when dealing with smaller APS-C sensors, we know that they can vary in sizes, with crop factor ranging from 1.52x to 1.7x and sensor sizes stretching from 20.7 x 13.8mm all the way to 24 x 16mm, depending on manufacturer or even a particular camera model. Well, the same thing applies to medium format. Basically, anything larger than a full-frame / 35mm sensor and smaller than large format (4 x 5 inches, or 102 x 127mm) is considered to be medium format.
In the case of the Fujifilm GFX 50S and other medium format cameras with a similar sensor size, such as the Hasselblad X1D-50c and the Pentax 645Z, the sensor area measures approximately 43.8 x 32.9mm, as shown in the below illustration comparing different sensor sizes:
As you can see, we have two different kinds of medium format sensors available today. One that is used on high-end and expensive medium format cameras like the Hasselblad H6D-100c (with a hefty price tag of $33K), and one that is used on cameras like the GFX 50S. And the size differences between these sensors is pretty drastic, especially once we start comparing them to full-frame. So, in a way, these are “mini” versions of medium format sensors, or as one of our readers described it, it is a “macro four thirds” sensor (makes sense, since the aspect ratio is also 4:3). Now if we put things in perspective, the gain from an APS-C size sensor to a full-frame sensor is pretty drastic – we are talking about a 2.34x increase in sensor area. This obviously does translate to visibly higher overall image quality when comparing APS-C and full-frame sensors. And if we look at the difference between an APS-C sensor and the GFX 50S, the gains are huge – almost a 4x difference in sensor area. Hence, for a current Fuji X-series shooter, moving up to medium format would provide a massive difference in image quality and resolution.
However, if we take a closer look at size differences between full-frame and the medium format sensor on the Fuji GFX 50S, we only see a gain of 1.67x in total sensor area. At the same time, if we were to look at the medium format sensor from the Hasselblad H6D-100c, that gain would be much larger in comparison at 2.47x – similar to a jump from APS-C to full-frame. One could certainly argue that the jump from a full-frame camera to the Fuji GFX 50S would not be worth it, as the 1.67x gain in sensor size seems inadequate compared to a much larger 2x+ hike in price when comparing something like the Nikon D810 to the GFX 50S. It seems like the next step up from full-frame should be the full size digital medium format sensor. But at $33K and higher prices for a 53.4 x 40mm medium format camera, we would be looking at a 12x+ increase in cost! Why is that? Well, that’s because making those full size medium format sensors is expensive. Such large sensors are considered to be niche products and hence, the cost of manufacturing, marketing and selling is very high when compared to mass-market products. Thanks to Pentax, which was the first to take medium format below the $10K price range for a larger market appeal, we now have options…
2) Weight + Size Advantages and Newer Technologies
So why would anyone invest in a smaller medium format sensor that will only have a 1.67x advantage in sensor size, which theoretically won’t even result in one full stop advantage? For most photographers, such a jump would not make much sense. Still, for those of us who want to move beyond full-frame in terms of image quality and take our work to the next level, that 2x increase in price vs a 1.67x larger sensor size is worth it. Add the benefits of the newer mirrorless technology in the form of an electronic viewfinder (EVF), ability to review and zoom into images through the EVF in bright daylight conditions, on-sensor focusing that eliminates the need to AF micro-adjust lenses, ability to adapt older medium format lenses, etc – i.e. things we cannot normally achieve on our DSLR cameras, one would realize that the benefits of moving up to medium format mirrorless would extend far beyond the growth in sensor size. And once you factor in the size and the weight advantages of the Fuji GFX 50S over a pro-level full-frame DSLR, it starts to make even more sense. I loved the images I was able to get out of the Pentax 645Z (see my detailed Pentax 645Z review), but the weight and the bulk of the camera were a huge penalty I was not willing to take, especially when traveling. With the GFX 50S, I would not have those concerns.
3) Lens Selection, Quality, Size and Weight Considerations
As of today, Fuji has announced a total of 3 lenses: GF 32-64mm f/4 R LM WR, GF 63mm f/2.8 R WR and GF 120mm f/4 Macro R LM OIS WR and three more prime lenses in the shape of 23mm f/4, 45mm f/2.8 and 110mm f/2 are supposed to be announced later this year. That’s a nice line-up of 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 25-51mm, 87mm and 95mm full-frame equivalent lenses. That’s a pretty big commitment on behalf of Fuji on a new mount and it shows that the company has been planning for the GFX 50S for a while now. With these lenses, the GFX 50S will appeal to many different types of photographers and I am sure Fuji will consider releasing ultra-fast lenses for specific needs such as portrait photography in the future. Given the history of the X mount, I have no doubt that the G mount lenses will not disappoint. In fact, if one looks at the current APS-C mirrorless cameras on the market, Fuji is definitely on the top when it comes to quality of lenses and I am sure the top management of the company wants to keep it that way for both mounts.
Thanks to the short flange distance of the G mount, it will be possible to adapt pretty much any medium or large format lens in the future. Starting from the launch, Fuji will already be providing an H mount adapter in order to be able to use any Hasselblad HC / Fujinon H lenses on the GFX 50S. While the lenses will not be able to autofocus, that should not be a problem, as one will be able to use the viewfinder in order to be able to zoom in on the subject and perfectly nail the focus. This is a pretty big advantage to anyone who currently owns Hasselblad lenses, as they will be able to instantly use these lenses with the adapter. And with time, I am sure we will see adapters for all kinds of medium and large format mounts.
For macro, product and landscape photography needs, Fuji will also be selling a view camera adapter, which will make it possible to mount the camera on bellows. While it might sound like overkill for some, having access to a bellow setup at launch is a huge advantage, as one does not have to stop down significantly in order to get the whole scene or subject in focus.
I am not sure if Fuji is planning to release any tilt-shift lenses for the G mount in the future, but I would personally welcome tilt-shift lenses for my landscape photography needs, as they are much easier and quicker to use compared to a full bellow setup.
It is true that the G mount lenses have to be designed bigger than their full-frame counterparts in order to accommodate a larger image circle of the medium format sensor. However, considering that Fuji is now making lenses specifically for this sensor size and not anything bigger, I do not foresee heavy, enormous lenses in the future. For example, Fuji’s new GF 32-64mm f/4 WR lens (25-51mm full-frame equivalent) is not a heavy monster when compared to full-frame lenses. At 875 grams, it is lighter than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and it has a shorter barrel, although it obviously does not cover the same focal length range. I am sure Fuji will keep weight and size considerations in mind when designing future lenses for the GFX 50S.
4) Resolution Potential
Now in terms of resolution potential of the Fuji GFX 50S, let’s take a quick look at something important – pixel size. With a resolution of 8256 x 6192 and sensor width of 43.8mm, we can easily calculate the pixel size of the sensor (see my article on Camera Resolution for details): 43.8mm / 8256 = 5.3µm. Interestingly, the Nikon D810 with a 36.3 MP sensor has a pixel size of 4.87µm, whereas the Nikon D750 with a 24.3 MP sensor has a pixel size of 5.96µm. Purely based on the performance of these cameras and without factoring in other criteria such as sensor age, differences in processing, etc., we can estimate that the GFX 50S will perform a bit better than the D810 at pixel level, whereas being potentially inferior to the D750. We can also estimate the future potential of the GFX cameras if we look at some higher resolution full-frame cameras of today. For example, if Fuji releases the next-generation GFX camera with the same 4.14µm pixel size as the Canon 5DS R, we would end up with an 83.8 MP camera – a pretty noticeable jump from 51.4 MP.
5) Firmware Updates
Fuji has an excellent track record when it comes to firmware updates. In fact, the company believes in providing value to its customers, even after their products are refreshed with the newer models. I do not know of any other camera company that provides such commitment and exceptional service on a continuous basis. That’s how we were able to get all the amazing firmware updates to older cameras like the Fuji X-Pro1, X100, X-T1 and many others – Fuji engineers continuously provided updates to the latest and greatest, constantly tweaking and updating their cameras to provide the best overall performance. Because of this, I am convinced that the Fuji GFX 50S will be a success. So far, the initial feedback from those who had a chance to test out the pre-production models of the cameras is very positive and even though we will most likely find initial bugs and issues at launch, I know that Fuji won’t leave its customers behind and work on addressing those issues as soon as possible. Fuji has demonstrated their commitment in the past and I know that we can trust the company to do the same going forward. I do not anticipate Fuji to address a serious flaw of a camera by ignoring a problem completely or releasing another model, like Nikon, Canon and others have done in the past…
Overall, I personally see a lot of potential in the GFX 50S and what is to come in the next few years from Fuji for the G mount. I have already placed a pre-order for the Fuji GFX 50S, the GF 32-65m f/4 WR lens and an additional NP-T125 battery and I am planning to use the GFX 50S as my main camera. If it proves to be more versatile than my Nikon D810 in the long run, I will be fully transitioning to the GFX 50S for my landscape photography needs. For everything else, I will keep on shooting with my Nikon gear, as it is a complete system and it will take years for Fuji to catch up in terms of lens and accessory selection. I hope that both Canon and Nikon wake up from their deep sleep and give us more exciting products later this year. With the 100th year anniversary coming up later this year, the hopes are high!
Hi Nasim. This is an excellent review. I was so pleased to come across it while researching my options. I am a 25+ year amateur and started doing pro work recently using my xh1 and xe3 as backup. I have been getting a bit frustrated with the low light performance of my xh1. I am doing children’s lifestyle sessions. I go to homes and take photos of kids in their natural surroundings, playing and being themselves. The challenge is that some homes don’t have great light! I have been finding a lot of my shots are high iso and I’m just not thrilled with how they look. I feel like I’m pushing the limits of this camera! I have to stay at about 1/200 SS and don’t really want to go below a 3.5 aperture or so. I use some supplemental flash but want to avoid flash whenever possible for a variety of reasons…. I’m just beginning to think about a move to GFX but am concerned about operation and auto focus speed. I worry I’d be frustrated in that regard especially with fast moving kids. Do you agree? Any other suggestions or thoughts? I am SO IN LOVE with Fuji I can’t even contemplate going back to Canon (or moving to sony) but I feel like I’m beginning to push the limits of the crop sensor. Thanks for any additional input or resources you might suggest.
I apologize I only saw this thread now, and only because I pre ordered the GFX 50s some two weeks ago, so have been checking on it since then whenever time permits. I’d like to address Niklas’ reservation about the depth of field advantage.
While it may appear that a 35mm format standard lens such as the ubiquitous 50mm f1.4 enjoys shallower dof than typical ‘fast’ medium format f2.0 standard lenses, let’s not forget depth of field is mainly co-related to lens focal length before aperture values considerations. Hence in the case of this 44mm x 33mm sensor, the standard lens focal length works out to 63mm or about 1.26x longer focal length than 50mm.
Currently on launch date around end of February, Fujifilm will release the GFX 50s with a 63mm f2.8 standard lens, hence the dof from this lens will likely not be shallower than the dof of typical 50mm f1.4 135 format lenses. However when Fuji does brings out a 63mm f2.0 or faster lens the dof of such a lens will certainly match or surpass that of typical 50mm f1.4 35mm format lenses.
Admittedly, regardless whether Fuji or even a third party lens maker were to make such 60+mm f2.0 lens with the requisite 55mm diameter image circle coverage for 44mm x 33mm sensors, such a lens will certainly be physically large and with commensurate higher prices… Hopefully if take up rates for this mini Mf format camera systems is good, then prices could come down with increased production scales in time to come.
As a working photographer who had already decided on this system, I do certainly hope Fujifilm and Hasselblad can drive increased sales numbers for eventual pricing drop in future.
Hi Joshua,
thanks for answering, but you misunderstood my post – everything I wrote was with taking equivalence into account (that’s why I compare full-frame f/1.4 to GFX f/1.8). Perhaps I overemphasized that I’m a beginner. :) (But I really wanted to stress that I have no prestige here and look forward to being corrected if I’m wrong!)
Also, note that equivalent depth of field for GFX is less that one stop different from full frame, so a GFX f/4 would not correspond to FF f/2.8 but rather around f/3.2 (and definitely not close to f/2).
However, I did forget to include this aspect:
7. Medium frame has potentially better dynamic range because of larger sensor. But even here, GFX marketing material talks about “14 stops of dynamic range”, while e.g. D810 is measured at close to 15. My guess is that this is explained by my speculation in my point 2: production technology of FF sensors is better developed and exposed to higher market competition.
So to reiterate, while medium frame may have theoretical potential advantages, the present GFX plus lens lineup is equal or worse in all aspects I can think of. Since I do realize that people infinitely more skilled than I (including the author of this article) look forward to GFX, I’m genuinely interested to know what I’m missing!
Best regards,
Niklas
Is it known whether or not the GFX lense lineup will support a larger ‘full-frame’ (53.4 mm x 40 mm) sensor?
Hey Mr. Nasim,
Different subject, but I’ve been wondering if you’ve had a chance to try out Affinity Photo for Windows yet?
And if so, what do you think?
As a portrait and still life photographer, I’m on the boat that if Fuji does not have high speed tethering available this simply won’t be an option for my workflow. I’ve been patience since XT1 with tethering options and Fuji has fell short in regards to that every time. LR is TOO slow to be a valuable option. I hope Capture One and Fuji come together on this one. If not, come Feb I will be purchasing a canon body + lens for my studio work to go alongside my XT2.
Sounds like the GFX 50S has a native ISO of 100. I’m wondering how its IQ will compare to the D810 with base 64 ISO. Any thoughts?
First, let me say I’m a beginner at photography so I may miss something important here.
Having said that: I don’t see what the GFX 50S medium frame (MF) adds to a photographer already working in pro-quality “full-frame” (35mm).
1. For maximum depth of field, the present GFX lens line-up is *worse* than standard fast FF lenses at f/1.4 (with the latter also being considerably cheaper). To get shallower DOF than FF f/1.4, a GFX lens would have to be faster than f/1.8 – and the fastest GFX lens right now is f/2.0. In other words, GFX lenses would need to get faster just to achieve DOF equivalency with FF!
2. For a specific DOF in limited light, MF need a a higher f-value than FF (0.7 stops?), but MF also has better ISO performance due to larger sensor. Given identical sensor technology for FF/MF, these exactly cancel out. (The assumption of identical sensor technology is probably too generous towards MF, since FF both has larger economies of scale and is exposed to much higher competition.)
3. As a consequence of points 1 and 2: For non-specific DOF in limited light (i.e., allowing arbitrarily thin DOF), FF wins since FF lenses are faster than GFX even when taking the GFX ISO advantage into account.
4. Given non-limited light, MF has (in theory) less noise at base ISO. But surely, noise is not an issue for FF *at base ISO*?
5. Better wider angle lenses possible for MF (in analogy to FF vs. APS-C)? If true (I really have no idea), this is not evident in the present GFX lens line-up.
6. For a given lens quality, MF allows higher pixel density before being constrained by lens sharpness.
To me, only point 6 speaks clearly in favor of MF. But even here, GFX (presently) does not really have an edge on Canon’s 5Ds. (But perhaps 5Ds is in practice limited by lack of lens sharpness??)
Of course, as I don’t shoot medium format, or even full frame, I probably miss important aspects here, so please correct me where I’m wrong!
Last but not least, thank you Nasim for hosting such a great web site!
I would really like to see this post addressed. I have asked myself these very same questions.
I also question whether this sensor will perform as well as the best FF sensors on the market. It should below 200 ISO, but I doubt it will above that. If it doesn’t, the small boost it should have based on its’ size would be negated by inferior performance relative to the very best FF sensors offered by Canon or Nikon or Sony, who will also, no doubt, combined, update their sensors in new cameras many times over during the same time period it takes Fuji to release one or two camera’s over the next several years.
Having said that, I suppose it really is only designed to exceed the performance of FF at ISO’s under 200 ISO, where it should and MUST by at least a stop in DR, Noise, Tonality, Color etc…
For #1 and maybe #2, 3, and 4, read all of this sensor article, especially section 4 and I think you will figure it out.
photographylife.com/senso…h-of-field
The f/4 lens on the medium format (depending, of course, on the actual sensor size of the medium format system) is close to the same as the f/2.8 lens on full frame (or even f/2). Because the MF sensor is bigger, the iris is bigger at the same level, so the iris on the full frame is smaller, meaning tighter, meaning more depth of field. Or, conversely, the iris is bigger on the medium format, meaning less depth of field, so even thought it is labeled f/4 you could think of it as a wider aperture like f/2/8 or even f/2 depending on how much bigger the sensor on the MF is. The same thing happens with your APS-C/DX/Crop sensor compared to a full frame — you have more depth of field than your friends with a full frame because of your smaller sensor.
For #2 and maybe #3 and 4. I don’t know how to property explain it, but it’s like the MF with an f/2.8 lens compared to a FF with an f/2.8 lens has a much larger iris that is letting in more light. Making the sensor smaller to FF or crop size affects your field of view (like how close you are to the subject), your depth of field (like how short your focus plane is and how much background blur you’ll get), and the absolute total amount of light hitting the sensor (as in the smaller sensor has less light in total because you have less sensor area), so the all-over image quality is greater with MF than FF, greater with FF than APS-C, etc. It is not always true, depending on the pixel density, but with all that extra light that come in and hit the larger sensor and with the larger sensor also generally means larger photo receptors, it usually adds up to greater dynamic range, thus more flexibility when you make mistakes and more flexibility in post production.
For #5, the crop factor is reversed so the lenses are all wider than they seem. When you put a 35mm lens on a crop/DX/APS-C sensor it feels more like a 50mm lens depending on the crop factor, but if you put a 50mm lens on MF camera it goes the other way, so it feels more like a 40mm on the Fuji GFX because it has a .79 crop factor, or some medium format have as low as a .49 crop so a 50mm lens would feel like 25mm on those larger sensors/films (6×7 film is .49 crop I think). So the current GF 32-64mm f/4 is more like a 25-51mm f/2.8 (or maybe even f/2, I can’t find the math on how to reverse calculate the total light, sorry). Their 120 lens is more like a nice 90mm portrait lens, the 64mm is more like a perfect 50mm normal lens, etc.
I was hoping Spencer Cox would see this because I bet he could explain it much better. This video might explain some of it too if they let me post outside links here. www.youtube.com/watch…5zN6NVx-hY
Hi Joshua, see my answer below. (I accidently made a new post instead of replying here.)
…man, if only they had pre-announce a line of lenses with leaf shutters, I’d be at the hands-on demo going on right now! Sorry Fuji, but I do feel that the sync speed will limit this impressive camera’s viability for many photographers out there…
I notice that the GFX 50S is listed on the Fuji site under GFX Cameras. Note that Cameras is plural. Fuji apparently plans more than they have revealed.
Jack, I noticed that yesterday too! I’m sure Fuji is planning for more MF cameras in the future – that would make sense. Ideally, I would like to see three options – low-budget, mid-range and high-end MF with all the bells and whistles. Hopefully the budget version would be priced in the $3K range!
Hopefully, this one is the high-end :-)
If low-end MF will go for less than $3,000, they will open an amazing market for themselves.
I am hoping they will have a mid-range MF around the mid 3k to 4k version. I mainly do landscapes but I am broadening to portraits in-studio and outdoors. My concern regarding the GFX series is the flash sync is only at 1/125. Has there been any examples of GFX being used with studio strobes like Profoto, Elinchrom, etc.?