FUJIFILM GFX 100S II for landscape photography.

[JoelKlein]

My desire for a FUJIFILM GFX 100S II, is building momentum in my brain.

I like their color science. Very similar to Nikon. And I like their lens quality.

I have bought the Z 14-24/2.8 20/1.8 for landscape shots. Although, I’m using the 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8 (1.2 is too soft, missing the bite) and 70-200 at 70mm.

I’m now in R&D mode.
For landscape photography the 100S should be the same IQ like its bigger brother. Unless the better EVF is a dealbreaker in the field.

Wich prime lens, or zoom lens would fill the roll from 14mm to 70mm?
Are Fuji zoom lenses as good as Nikon?

P.S.
I have seen some nice shots from the Fuji XT-3. Seems they have a better option to replace my current Z30. That is a separate discussion.

 

[AlanDB]

I shot w/ the GFX 100S for a couple of years. The image quality is sublime, the lenses are superb (I used the 23mmF/4, 45-100mmF/4, and 100-200mmF/5.6). But I eventually ditched it for a Nikon Z-set up instead. There were a handful of motivating factors: (1) Lack of lens choices - for landscape I like to shoot w/ 3 zooms to cover (roughly) 14/16mm full frame up to (roughly) 200mm full frame. You really can't do that (currently?) with GFX. You can live /w the 23mm (~18mm FF) for wide angle stuff, but if you don't have a lot of forward/back walking space it can be a little bit limiting. For a while I was shooting Nikon DSLR FF w/ the 20mm and 24mm lenses and that worked well, I'm sure you can make the GF23mm work but it is a bit limiting.

(2) Lack of lens choices: I want to get into start expanding into wildlife/action shooting, and there just aren't good choices there.

(3) Speaking of which, it's too large/bulky/heavy to shoot the GFX system for wildlife/action.

(4) And, furthermore the system is slow. For landscape type shooting it's not too bad, but I found it very hard to adjust things on the fly - for example, when shooting some fall foliage trips around here you sometimes need to time the shots right based upon the light moving (as the leaves on the tree move) and I just didn't find the GFX overly responsive for those sorts of situations. Similarly when shooting near the coast and trying to time waves &c. Doable for sure, but it just never felt as responsive, and quick to manipulate as the Nikons I had used. It just always felt a bit slow - even moving around menus &c.

I actually tried a dual set up - GFX for "serious" landscape type work and Fuji X for others - but I just didn't see Fuji being as good at action/wildlife as I was seeing what Nikon (& Sony and Canon) could do. So, I went back to Nikon.

Re: colors produced - after switching back to Nikon for the past year or so, I will say that I think Fuji's rendering seem much nicer. I have trouble w/ certain blues in images - just back from a fall foliage trip and the water in a couple of scenes was just too saturated/vibrant and the hues seemed ... off ... Fixable for sure, but I will say I always enjoyed the rendering straight out of camera from Fuji's (both GFX and X cameras).

 

[Nimi]

My desire for a FUJIFILM GFX 100S II, is building momentum in my brain.

I like their color science. Very similar to Nikon. And I like their lens quality.

I have bought the Z 14-24/2.8 20/1.8 for landscape shots. Although, I’m using the 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8 (1.2 is too soft, missing the bite) and 70-200 at 70mm.

I’m now in R&D mode.
For landscape photography the 100S should be the same IQ like its bigger brother. Unless the better EVF is a dealbreaker in the field.

Wich prime lens, or zoom lens would fill the roll from 14mm to 70mm?
Are Fuji zoom lenses as good as Nikon?

P.S.
I have seen some nice shots from the Fuji XT-3. Seems they have a better option to replace my current Z30. That is a separate discussion.

I own the GFX100 (the original) and rented the S II. No difference in IQ and in both cases better then any full-frame I've owned. The S II has some more modern trappings/features. The lenses are very good and on par with Nikon's S lenses. The 23 and 55 are as good as the 1.2s. The 110 is as good as the Plana.

BTW, I don't own one, but rented it a few times. The 50r is a joy to use and the image quality is crazy good.

Just know that the experience is diameteically opposed to the Z9. Everything about it is s-l-o-w. Also, while Fuji made a big deal out of the video capabilities of the S II, I found it meh at best. The Z9 is better for video.

 

[Nimi]

I shot w/ the GFX 100S for a couple of years. The image quality is sublime, the lenses are superb (I used the 23mmF/4, 45-100mmF/4, and 100-200mmF/5.6). But I eventually ditched it for a Nikon Z-set up instead. There were a handful of motivating factors: (1) Lack of lens choices - for landscape I like to shoot w/ 3 zooms to cover (roughly) 14/16mm full frame up to (roughly) 200mm full frame. You really can't do that (currently?) with GFX. You can live /w the 23mm (~18mm FF) for wide angle stuff, but if you don't have a lot of forward/back walking space it can be a little bit limiting. For a while I was shooting Nikon DSLR FF w/ the 20mm and 24mm lenses and that worked well, I'm sure you can make the GF23mm work but it is a bit limiting.

(2) Lack of lens choices: I want to get into start expanding into wildlife/action shooting, and there just aren't good choices there.

(3) Speaking of which, it's too large/bulky/heavy to shoot the GFX system for wildlife/action.

(4) And, furthermore the system is slow. For landscape type shooting it's not too bad, but I found it very hard to adjust things on the fly - for example, when shooting some fall foliage trips around here you sometimes need to time the shots right based upon the light moving (as the leaves on the tree move) and I just didn't find the GFX overly responsive for those sorts of situations. Similarly when shooting near the coast and trying to time waves &c. Doable for sure, but it just never felt as responsive, and quick to manipulate as the Nikons I had used. It just always felt a bit slow - even moving around menus &c.

I actually tried a dual set up - GFX for "serious" landscape type work and Fuji X for others - but I just didn't see Fuji being as good at action/wildlife as I was seeing what Nikon (& Sony and Canon) could do. So, I went back to Nikon.

Re: colors produced - after switching back to Nikon for the past year or so, I will say that I think Fuji's rendering seem much nicer. I have trouble w/ certain blues in images - just back from a fall foliage trip and the water in a couple of scenes was just too saturated/vibrant and the hues seemed ... off ... Fixable for sure, but I will say I always enjoyed the rendering straight out of camera from Fuji's (both GFX and X cameras).

100% in agreement.

 

[JoelKlein]

Thank you both for your time to a answer.
@AlanDB writes that the IQ is ‘sublime’ vs the Nikon Z, while @Nimi writes ‘better then any full-frame’
Then Nimi agrees to AlanDB’s post.

I am confused. Is the Fuji GFX IQ inferior to the Nikon Z8/9?

 

[AlanDB]

Thank you both for your time to a answer.
@AlanDB writes that the IQ is ‘sublime’ vs the Nikon Z, while @Nimi writes ‘better then any full-frame’
Then Nimi agrees to AlanDB’s post.

I am confused. Is the Fuji GFX IQ inferior to the Nikon Z8/9?

No, both have exceptional image quality, the GFX image quality is probably technically better, but the difference is relatively small. I think we agree that there are some negatives that go along with that positive. You really have to decide what is most important for your shooting style.

 

[Nimi]

Thank you both for your time to a answer.
@AlanDB writes that the IQ is ‘sublime’ vs the Nikon Z, while @Nimi writes ‘better then any full-frame’
Then Nimi agrees to AlanDB’s post.

I am confused. Is the Fuji GFX IQ inferior to the Nikon Z8/9?

We agree that the images are sublime/better than FF. But it's not radically so. Fuji calls it medium format, but in fact it's somewhere between the traditional 35mm and medium format.

 

[JoelKlein]

What you’re saying is, Whatever the Fuji 102mp delivers, I could achieve with the Z8 45mp?

 

[Nimi]

What you’re saying is, Whatever the Fuji 102mp delivers, I could achieve with the Z8 45mp?

Very close. For me, the main reason was the 110, which is an incredible lens with 85mm ff field of view. I still dont think there is another rig better for museum-quality portraits. That was before the 85/1.2 came out.

Check out the work of Philip Sharp. He actually offered a Masterclass using that camera/lens combo.

The pixel size is 25% smaller than the Z9's. Readout speed is very very slow. Bit depth is 2 over the Z9. So you get a little more dynamic range. I don't think Nikkor has lenses as sharp as the 23 and 55, so if you're shooting architecture or interiors, that could be a reason.

 

[JoelKlein]

Very close. For me, the main reason was the 110, which is an incredible lens with 85mm ff field of view. I still dont think there is another rig better for museum-quality portraits. That was before the 85/1.2 came out.

Check out the work of Philip Sharp. He actually offered a Masterclass using that camera/lens combo.

The pixel size is 25% smaller than the Z9's. Readout speed is very very slow. Bit depth is 2 over the Z9. So you get a little more dynamic range. I don't think Nikkor has lenses as sharp as the 23 and 55, so if you're shooting architecture or interiors, that could be a reason.

I was thinking strictly about landscape use.

Let me explain where I'm stuck. Maybe adding more pixels and a bigger sensor isn't the solution. See the pictures below. No matter where I place the focus point or how much stacking I do, the leaves on the trees appear as one big mush with no detail.

I shot these pictures today using AF-S and a single-point focus. I placed the focus point hard in the front, a bit up, in the middle frame, and far up on the trees.

Z8 50/1.2 @ f/6.3, 1/200, ISO 64.

Can you see the leaves? I can't. These are full-res files. Zoom in.

 

[dabhand16]

FWIW - Mark Denny - https://markdenneyphotography.com/ was using a Fuji GFX and has recently bought a Nikon Z8!

This video gives his reasons:

This was probably before Fuji announced the GF 500mm lens, but I think that would be too long for him as he did use the 200-400 range in his earlier work.

 

[Nimi]

I was thinking strictly about landscape use.

Let me explain where I'm stuck. Maybe adding more pixels and a bigger sensor isn't the solution. See the pictures below. No matter where I place the focus point or how much stacking I do, the leaves on the trees appear as one big mush with no detail.

I shot these pictures today using AF-S and a single-point focus. I placed the focus point hard in the front, a bit up, in the middle frame, and far up on the trees.

Z8 50/1.2 @ f/6.3, 1/200, ISO 64.

Can you see the leaves? I can't. These are full-res files. Zoom in.

You're in giga-pixel, multi-axis pano territory. Probably best to read up about it elsewhere, it takes some work (and equipment). I'd experiment and invest in a pano head and maybe new software before investing in a new system. Your Z8 and 85 or 50mm lenses should be able to do it.