Fujifilm gfx 50s: Is there anyone in the forum that shoots with the 50s? Would like to hear your thoughts and feelings about the camera. I thank you for your reply.

sabrejet

Is there anyone in the forum that shoots with the 50s? Would like to hear your thoughts and feelings about the camera. I thank you for your reply.

AK Loc: Adelaide Hills, South Australia

Hello sabrejet,
Yes I have a 50s and have been shooting with it for a little while. (Also have canon 5D3.)
Lenses are 32-64 and the 110f2. Both are slow to focus AF but easy to MF.
My comments only
Size and weight and balance suits me.
Sharper results with monopod and tripod. Detail and dynamic range is impressive.
Forget burst shooting
Generally 51mp results in file sizes of about 100mb so sharing can be a challenge unless using something like Dropbox.
Colours and options typical Fuji read great.
For me I use canon for normal walk around, family, groups and individuals and some sport events.
I use 50s for those shots, landscape, specific items, portraits where time for each shot is available to setup and assess conditions and aim for a result.
The 50s has helped me to get away from the spray and pray mentality and put thought and effort into each shot. This has flowed over into the 5D3 as well.

Please note these are my opinion only. Hope it helps. Cheers and happy shooting.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

sabrejet wrote:

Is there anyone in the forum that shoots with the 50s? Would like to hear your thoughts and feelings about the camera. I thank you for your reply.

Look here to see what ACTUAL users say about the camera. To be honest, ff bodies with higher and higher megs compete fine against it and for a fraction of the price.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1283336-REG/fujifilm_gfx_50s_medium_format.html/reviews

sabrejet

Thank you AK and Bill.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

I had a chance to handle a 50s and a 50r earlier this wear in Osaka. Being a medium format mirror-less camera it is very light compared to most of it's competitors, it is even lighter than many FF cameras. It is not a speed demon but the test shots i fired off in the store were sharp and and I do like the Fuji colors.

John

roadchuck

So you don't think cramming more megapixels into a smaller sensor might be a problem?

sabrejet

Heard a lot about more MP in a given sensor in the past. Not so much with 45 and now 61 in FF. As for Fuji going from 50 to 100, I have not seen any comments. One said tech has solved any problems with the packing more into the same space. I would appreciate any facts about this. Thank you

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I dont have the Fuji but recently bought the Pentax 645Z, which is considerably heavier but has an optical rather than an electronic viewfinder and a mirror. For me, the MF 51MP 645Z was everything I hoped it would be. The colors and detail are spectacular.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Bobspez wrote:

I dont have the Fuji but recently bought the Pentax 645Z, which is considerably heavier but has an optical rather than an electronic viewfinder and a mirror. For me, the MF 51MP 645Z was everything I hoped it would be. The colors and detail are spectacular.

I tried the 645Z and the Fuji while in Japan, just in store. I found the Fuji to be much lighter for a fella to carry around, 1560 grams vs 920 grams. It appears they are based on the same sensor but different processor and I know they have different bells and whistles. Would love to go MF as my field of vision is closer to MF than FF.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The 645Z is definitiely a bit of a beast hand held. And you can hear that mirror slap. But the color quality to me is more like film than digital. I couldn't see duplicating MF digital format with any other digital format. The reason I chose the 645Z over other MF cameras is it has HD video, and the price was finally in my ballpark. I bought the used Z with 12,000 actuations and the 55mm auto focus lens for just over $3K. Three additional 645 manual lenses, the 35mm, the 120mm macro and the 200mm, cost me an additional $500. The Z has an excellent view finder and an excellent live view with focus peaking. I wouldn't be able to accurately focus manually without it.

letmedance wrote:

I tried the 645Z and the Fuji while in Japan, just in store. I found the Fuji to be much lighter for a fella to carry around, 1560 grams vs 920 grams. It appears they are based on the same sensor but different processor and I know they have different bells and whistles. Would love to go MF as my field of vision is closer to MF than FF.

BebuLamar

roadchuck wrote:

So you don't think cramming more megapixels into a smaller sensor might be a problem?

The Fuji GFX 50s doesn't have a smaller sensor. While its sensor isn't the largest but larger than most cameras at 43.8 x 32.9mm. It doesn't have too many pixels per unit area for by today's standard. Possibly having the fewest pixels per unit area in the entire Fuji camera line.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

BebuLamar wrote:

The Fuji GFX 50s doesn't have a smaller sensor. While its sensor isn't the largest but larger than most cameras at 43.8 x 32.9mm. It doesn't have too many pixels per unit area for by today's standard. Possibly having the fewest pixels per unit area in the entire Fuji camera line.

It has the same sensor as the Pentax 645.

sabrejet

The 50s and the 100 have the same size sensor, 33 x 44. Does that not make the 100 have a higher density sensor than the 50s?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

sabrejet wrote:

The 50s and the 100 have the same size sensor, 33 x 44. Does that not make the 100 have a higher density sensor than the 50s?

Yes it must have a higher density as the sensor size is constant, it also means smaller pixel size.

sabrejet

One thought I have. The IQ on the 50s vs say the new Sony 61mp on a FF sensor?