Here is a quick, informal opinion which rings true: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2024/05/20/fujifilm-gfx-100s-ii-preview-im-whelmed/
Medium Format Wildlife in 2024
- Thread starter rangerider
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm gfx medium format
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Here is a quick, informal opinion which rings true: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2024/05/20/fujifilm-gfx-100s-ii-preview-im-whelmed/
StefanSC
Well-known member
I think this Fuji camera and lens are interesting at first glance but the longer you think about it, the less it makes sense.
Currently, the wildlife photography style is dominated by bright, punchy shots where the moment captured in the shot matters the most.
A Z8 with a 400mm f4.5 will do a much better job at that then the Fuji, it will be nigh on indistinguishable in quality/look for web usage and up to around A3 prints and it is still 1000$ cheaper.
And the Fuji's sensor is too small to really get you that gloomy/evocative/melancholic look (if I recall correctly, Nick Brandt shot his "On This Earth" series on a Pentax 67 II which is 56x70mm compared to 44x33mm for the Fuji).
So that leaves what? About 10 photographers that need wall sized fine art prints of wildlife for which the new Fuji would make sense?
Friend used to shoot wildlife (tho she was primarily a landscape photog) with a 4x4 large format camera, complete with bellows! As for weight, it travelled in canoe in its wooden case inside a very large wet dry bag and was portaged. Single shot per (however long it took you to remove a film plate and add a fresh one) and had 'manual' shutter (e.g. one removed the cover from the lens and kept it off for the amount of time one wished to expose the film 
I'm sticking with Z9/D6
I'm sticking with Z9/D6 
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Do you want to duplicate the current style or do you want to make your own? Lead, or follow?
"Wildlife photography" is as varied as "people photography". Portraits, activity, interactions, habitat, studio (including outdoor studios at the birdbath), guided, solo, stalking, waiting in a blind, spontaneous, deliberate, and much more. "Wildlife photography" isn't limited to popular styles.
Let's not forget Elliot Porter's 4x5 Kodachrome photos of birds which to this day have a richness and tonality most of us can only dream of.
R
rangerider
Guest
If you're viewing this through the mindset of having only one system, then full frame is a no brainer for wildlife, I agree. This is the only lens option we've seen for medium format so I don't expect anyone would be trading all their gear in for this setup.
My curiosities are more about the potential benefits of such a setup compared to full frame, because Fujifilm has opened the door here a little and seems to be committed to building this out over time. Is there a noticeable physical quality to the images when printed larger? Nimi mentioned bit depth and dynamic range advantages, for example. Does any of this translate to a better looking image? Right now some folks seem to use medium format for those larger mammal environmental portraits, for example, that tell a rich story rather than simply stopping motion. Why do they pick up the medium format for that rather than full frame?
Could we imagine a lineup of medium format lenses and bodies that continue to move more into getting you those mid-range wildlife shots? Sure, you're not going to get your 1000mm lens option so should stick with full frame for that, but I'd like to know the value of the larger sensor and where it fits into the tool box potentially with this genre.
My curiosities are more about the potential benefits of such a setup compared to full frame, because Fujifilm has opened the door here a little and seems to be committed to building this out over time. Is there a noticeable physical quality to the images when printed larger? Nimi mentioned bit depth and dynamic range advantages, for example. Does any of this translate to a better looking image? Right now some folks seem to use medium format for those larger mammal environmental portraits, for example, that tell a rich story rather than simply stopping motion. Why do they pick up the medium format for that rather than full frame?
Could we imagine a lineup of medium format lenses and bodies that continue to move more into getting you those mid-range wildlife shots? Sure, you're not going to get your 1000mm lens option so should stick with full frame for that, but I'd like to know the value of the larger sensor and where it fits into the tool box potentially with this genre.
I toyed with view cameras in my youth.
In the early days of photography Speed Graphics were used by news photographers and those were used hand held. They were of course all-manual but the lenses had a shutter and the lens would control shutter speed and aperture. You had to insert the film plate and pull the slide to load the camera, you got one shot and then had to reinsert the slide and switch plates. I still have my speed graphic.
You could use the back glass for composing. Just open the lens and shutter and you had the full film plane for composing.
Film had to be loaded and unloaded in a darkroom and you needed a rather large enlarger for printing. Typically you would get contact prints from the negatives.
These cameras were great for highly controlled static images and Angel Adams was the master of the view camera. But nothing was quick and you had to carry a truck load of equipment.
I toyed with it but you really needed a large darkroom and a lot of expensive equipment to do anything productive. Plus a lot of time. None of that worked for me.
Not an ideal camera for wildlife photography.
Technology advances have done wonders for still photography. I would never want to go back.
In the early days of photography Speed Graphics were used by news photographers and those were used hand held. They were of course all-manual but the lenses had a shutter and the lens would control shutter speed and aperture. You had to insert the film plate and pull the slide to load the camera, you got one shot and then had to reinsert the slide and switch plates. I still have my speed graphic.
You could use the back glass for composing. Just open the lens and shutter and you had the full film plane for composing.
Film had to be loaded and unloaded in a darkroom and you needed a rather large enlarger for printing. Typically you would get contact prints from the negatives.
These cameras were great for highly controlled static images and Angel Adams was the master of the view camera. But nothing was quick and you had to carry a truck load of equipment.
I toyed with it but you really needed a large darkroom and a lot of expensive equipment to do anything productive. Plus a lot of time. None of that worked for me.
Not an ideal camera for wildlife photography.
Technology advances have done wonders for still photography. I would never want to go back.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
One quality I see in medium format that is difficult to replicate in a smaller format is full tonal gradation, the number of steps in each color channel between completely black and brightest white. Any time you see gaps in your histogram you're missing one or more steps in the tonal scale, and the histogram we see on our computer screens doesn't always tell the full story.
Honestly, I can get the same image with my Z9 and my GFX100. When I get a photo I can't duplicate, I attribute it to the lens (110/2), which is the best lens I've ever used, not the sensor. The Nikon 85/1.2 comes very close, btw.
In summary, I'd pick it if you convince yourself the optics are that vastly superior. The sensor (Sony), its size (1.7x FF), the specs are just incrimently different and it's certainly harder to get the shot.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
All else being equal the larger sensor collects more photons. Photons = image data. More data means greater latitude for adjustments, greater tonal range. Simple physics. It's the same advantage full format has over m43.
Yes, that's why I shoot one and may get the 100ii. But it's hard work, and the difference is not as stark because of how we view/print/display. What I'm finding out is that the lenses are the rate-limiting-steps. The 110/2 is an exception, the 120, for example, can't resolve 100mp.
R
rangerider
Guest
I shot Fujifilm's ASPC for a little while out of curiosity, and while they have a fantastic reputation for making quality glass, I also found that they don't update their lenses as often as needed. Many of their lenses are just finally getting weather sealing, for example, despite people begging for this for a decade. Sounds like that habit applies to their GF lineup, as well—I could see them outgrowing old lenses quickly and not updating them for quite some time.
Same here! Had the XT1, 2, 3 and 4 and Xpro 1 and 2.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Circa 2017, I researched MF in depth. Mostly, this was online but I was fortunate to visit two retailers as well as a Pro gear rental - all in London. Cost was / is the biggest negative. If one is serious about landscape photography, it's feasible to justify a minimal MTF system: either a Fuji or Hasselblad. I know 2 leading outdoor photographers who invested in Fuji.
As Lance said, the 0.79 "crop" conversion is the key factor for most wildlife genres, birds especially.... With the bonuses notably dynamic range (compared to FX) conferred by 1.67x more area of the 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor. The equally important factor is Autofocus, where FX MILC is better for action. Last time I searched, there were no direct comparisons of AF performance of the Hasselblad or Fuji MF MILCs against the primary options for wildlife in FX systems.
However, I saw, indeed still see, where MF has an advantage for some wildlife photography. This is where one can frame subjects adequately, particularly Animalscapes with the subject in the foreground. These situations may often be possible in carefully planned remote setups + much patience; this means one has to be on foot.
[EDITED ] However, the 45mp FX sensors, together today's excellent UWide lenses, close the gaps between FX and MTF in image quality let alone camera features - AutoCapture especially if one uses a Z8 or Z9 for Animalscapes.
www.dpreview.com
www.thebroketographers.com
photographylife.com
As Lance said, the 0.79 "crop" conversion is the key factor for most wildlife genres, birds especially.... With the bonuses notably dynamic range (compared to FX) conferred by 1.67x more area of the 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor. The equally important factor is Autofocus, where FX MILC is better for action. Last time I searched, there were no direct comparisons of AF performance of the Hasselblad or Fuji MF MILCs against the primary options for wildlife in FX systems.
However, I saw, indeed still see, where MF has an advantage for some wildlife photography. This is where one can frame subjects adequately, particularly Animalscapes with the subject in the foreground. These situations may often be possible in carefully planned remote setups + much patience; this means one has to be on foot.
[EDITED ] However, the 45mp FX sensors, together today's excellent UWide lenses, close the gaps between FX and MTF in image quality let alone camera features - AutoCapture especially if one uses a Z8 or Z9 for Animalscapes.
Opinion: Thinking about buying medium format? Read this first
Recent medium format digital announcement has turned a lot of heads, and for good reason. However, some of us are less excited than others. Technical Editor Rishi Sanyal explains why he's not quite convinced. Read more
www.dpreview.com
"Moving" to Medium Format : Fujifilm GFX-50S — The Broketographers
Since the advent of the two affordable Medium Format options in the form of the Fujifilm GFX-50S and the Hasselblad X1D , I've been thinking a lot about about "moving" to Medium Format.
www.thebroketographers.com
Fujifilm GFX 50S Considerations
photographylife.com
Last edited:
Back in the film era I had a Hasselblad c/m. This was of course a completely manual system with not even a needle match to determine exposure. I mostly shot color slides, too expensive to actually do any printing myself. As I recall the 120 film rolls held about 12 shots. I loved tthe camera and the images it would produce but I also observed that when dealing with this high a quality an even small error in focusing became glaringly obvious. Plus the complete inflexibility of film meant that unless you have a full on medium format darkrooom you could not control the results. Taking it to a lab was not worth it because they would not understand and apply your vision.
Hasselblad later went digital but at that point a camera I paid $3000 for used now cost 50-60 grand. And that doesn’t even include a lens.
The other thing about Hasselblad is they had some pretty phenomenal quality lenses to go with the larger format. You need to spend big on lens quality for these cameras.
Hasselblad later went digital but at that point a camera I paid $3000 for used now cost 50-60 grand. And that doesn’t even include a lens.
The other thing about Hasselblad is they had some pretty phenomenal quality lenses to go with the larger format. You need to spend big on lens quality for these cameras.
And here is the irony. After struggling to transition to digital, Hasselblad was sold to DJI, the Chinese drone company and uses Sony sensors.
Fuji is genuinely the only game in town if you chose to play.
What cameras are now most used in the fashion industry?
I have the Z8 for everything but I have a Hasselblad X2D for portrait, landscape, sky and inside. It’s really wonderful, especially Hasselblad colour science, but it’s not able to continuously focus nor has it any detect other than eye detect - and that’s just acceptable - so no, this medium format camera isn’t for animals unless they’re standing around . I don’t know anything about the Fuji film MF.
I'd say the R5, A7mkV, 5D and a few Z8.
I would think lens reach along with the associated size, weight, and cost would make most of today’s wildlife shooters think MF is a step back because it’s harder to fill the frame and if you crop to FF how much real difference is there between MF and a Z8/9 or Z1? And the FPS is also a step back…as well may be the AF but I havent really ever looked at the MF capabilities. For landscape people…the extra pixels are good…but then they don’t really need long reach or high FPS.
I think MF would work for wildlife…but most will see it currently as a step back.
I think MF would work for wildlife…but most will see it currently as a step back.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Timeous article. Interesting to note this GFX100 II + GF 500 f5.6 weighs 2.3kg combined
photographylife.com
Is Medium Format Now Viable for Wildlife Photography?
It's not often that a product can be described as a game-changer, no matter how much the term is overused in marketing. However, the introduction of the Fuji GF 500mm f/5.6 lens may qualify. With this lens, for the first time ever, medium format can be a platform for serious wildlife photography.
photographylife.com
O
Well-known member
Its heading in the direction of MF in the future, i feel 35mm is at the dawn of its use by date, and even stills as we have known them to be.
I feel we will be in the future mostly MF and Video, we are seeing manufacturers creeping in that direction, MF can tolerate higher ISO more as well as far more cropping.
Only an opinion
I shot wildlife with a Mamiya DM33. I bought it in 2011. I still have it. I use it with subject that they don’t move quickly. I took it in 2013 to Africa and the Galapagos and in 2017 to the Teton and Yellowstone NP Shooting all kind of mammals and perched birds. The quality of the image are still amazing compared to my Nikon D3S that I had it at that time and to some of my new cameras Since it is 16 bit, has more dynamic range, the photos are very sharp and the detail are beautiful. I can’t give away yet. I still use it from time to time when I want to slow down and shoot less action like macro or wildlife in their environment.
Full frame and Medium format are two different system and each one has its place in photography
Full frame and Medium format are two different system and each one has its place in photography
As best I can tell, the GFX100s II shoots a 3-5 frames per second with lossless compressed files. Seems really slow for wildlife action compared to the full frame competition. I can not find much information about the speed and quality of the autofocus, although the camera does have subject detection. Lastly, as mentioned above, the "reach" is a problem, as the 500 mm lens listed as a field of view just less than 400mm. Not a lot of reach. In the reviews I read, the camera was said to be great for landscapes and product photography and, perhaps, portraits. No reviewer mentioned the camera as a good choice for wildlife.
O
Well-known member
From what i understand currently the
MF Fuji GFX II has
102MP resolution
8fps continuous shooting speed
8 stops of in-body stabilization ( Same as the ZF and no doubt forth coming newer models from Nikon)
Max video resolution: 8K at 30fps (similar to the Z8 Z9)
Only an opinion
None of us really know what technological advances will do cameras and lenses in the future.
Full professional level FX cameras used to max out in the 20 some megapixel range because you could not do things fast enough with higher megapixel sensors.
Now the top professional digital fx format cameras thrive in the 40 something megapixel range. The speed has come fully to this range and the greater raw image size helps creativity by allowing the wider use of cropping to enhance image composition. Plus the ability to shoot in 20 fps bursts gives you so much to work with for subjects that are moving or being shot in difficult conditions.
Meanwhile lens advances have broadly improved the quality of lenses. The Z mount in particular has allowed for a larger lens opening and shorter distance to sensor plane. New designs are both sharper, lighter and more flexible compared to F mount optics.
It used to be that if you were working high end photography in many fields you needed medium format or larger. More and more of this range of photography is being handled by FX format cameras with higher megapixel sensors.
What will happen with sensors in the future? Can we make sensors that can create the same image quality as current medium format sensors? Can we gain significant abilities to shoot in low light?
And what about depth of field? Can advances in post processing allow us to make lenses with narrower apertures create the same background rendering effects as the super expensive primes? Imagine if you could buy a lens for 2 or 3 grand that could do everything a $15k lens can do.
Theoretically we can shoot almost anything with any format camera if we are patient and lucky enough. But the new technology opens the door to so many more creative options.
I can say I never fully appreciated the natural beauty of birds until I started shooting them with high IQ cameras and long focal length lenses. I live near a large heron rookery and I am fascinated by the way they move and appear under wing.
Yes I would like to play around with a great medium format camera. I don't see myself ever spending 50 grand for a phase one of high end Hasselblad would interest me if I could come up with some really rich and nuanced images. I could see starting with landscape and maybe bringing it to a shoot where I can catch animals and birds from a blind or some other location where they stand still long enough to be seen up close.
Full professional level FX cameras used to max out in the 20 some megapixel range because you could not do things fast enough with higher megapixel sensors.
Now the top professional digital fx format cameras thrive in the 40 something megapixel range. The speed has come fully to this range and the greater raw image size helps creativity by allowing the wider use of cropping to enhance image composition. Plus the ability to shoot in 20 fps bursts gives you so much to work with for subjects that are moving or being shot in difficult conditions.
Meanwhile lens advances have broadly improved the quality of lenses. The Z mount in particular has allowed for a larger lens opening and shorter distance to sensor plane. New designs are both sharper, lighter and more flexible compared to F mount optics.
It used to be that if you were working high end photography in many fields you needed medium format or larger. More and more of this range of photography is being handled by FX format cameras with higher megapixel sensors.
What will happen with sensors in the future? Can we make sensors that can create the same image quality as current medium format sensors? Can we gain significant abilities to shoot in low light?
And what about depth of field? Can advances in post processing allow us to make lenses with narrower apertures create the same background rendering effects as the super expensive primes? Imagine if you could buy a lens for 2 or 3 grand that could do everything a $15k lens can do.
Theoretically we can shoot almost anything with any format camera if we are patient and lucky enough. But the new technology opens the door to so many more creative options.
I can say I never fully appreciated the natural beauty of birds until I started shooting them with high IQ cameras and long focal length lenses. I live near a large heron rookery and I am fascinated by the way they move and appear under wing.
Yes I would like to play around with a great medium format camera. I don't see myself ever spending 50 grand for a phase one of high end Hasselblad would interest me if I could come up with some really rich and nuanced images. I could see starting with landscape and maybe bringing it to a shoot where I can catch animals and birds from a blind or some other location where they stand still long enough to be seen up close.