Fujifilm GFX 50R review

dpreview:

Fujifilm GFX 50R Review

However, because the 44 x 33mm format is only 70% larger than full-frame, the difference in image quality between the Fujifilm and the best of its full-frame peers (some of which have more advanced sensors) is somewhere between slight and non-existent. This means you pay an awful lot of money for a marginal gain. And, of course those smaller-format cameras are stronger all-rounders in terms of autofocus, shooting rate and video, making them adaptable to a wider range of challenges.

Hmmm...

Not a lot of medium format people out there clamoring for video or frame rate - just sayin'...
I ended up getting a 50R as a backup to my 50S - haven't put it through its paces yet.

Reading through it, apparently Canon makes the D810

Surprised you got a 50R, E.J. Mine also is still awaiting a really firm initial workout, but I'm liking it so far in minor goofing around. It's soooo light compared to the Pentax! It makes the poorer hand-holding ergonomics of the 50R livable.

I read the DPR GFX 50R review back when it dropped. Almost every product lineup has an older / more entry level model that isn't superlative when compared against top-line models from some other series. It doesn't really invalidate or validate anything as an isolated comparison.

By similar DPR logic, nobody should shoot full frame 35mm instead of APS-C. Or APS-C instead of Micro Four-Thirds. Or Micro Four-Thirds instead of 1". Etc. These arguments always suffer from simplistic reasoning, lack of systems thinking, not comparing apples to apples, not putting the differential levels of function in context of who might need them and for what, etc.

Even if through the somewhat over-reaching logic there was strong merit to the argument, as I've said years back I prefer to support innovation when I can. The GFX 50R may not blow the doors off some other brand-new, top-spec 35mm cameras... but it's still darn good. And it fuels the R&D of and fits within a (hopefully) profitable product line with the imminent GFX 100. Just like the Pentax 645D was lacking in many respects, but: a) still allowed me to make some awesome imagery that for years surpassed what I could do with the 35mm cameras of the day; and b) paved the way for Pentax to introduce the 645Z, a camera that was better in every respect than its predecessor but likely would not have existed without the D.

Similarly, the GFX 100 will sport a current spec sensor to stack up against those "best of its [35mm] full-frame peers". Then we'll see what new arguments pop camera sites bring as to why it costs too much and is really no better than whatever...

The review linked above was published on Mar 5, 2019, today.

I think the point dpreview is making is this: given what you gain on image quality is so minimum (according to their findings of course), is it worth the significantly more amount of money one has to pay to get the Fujifilm GFX 50R instead of say a high-res full-frame Sony or Nikon especially when the latters are more versatile tools?

Royce Howland wrote:Surprised you got a 50R, E.J. Mine also is still awaiting a really firm initial workout, but I'm liking it so far in minor goofing around. It's soooo light compared to the Pentax! It makes the poorer hand-holding ergonomics of the 50R livable.

Well it's $1K less than a 50S and it is a backup.  My 50S is my primary landscape camera but I'm not comfortable with overseas travel to potentially once in a life time locations without a backup and I wouldn't want to take a second system as a backup.  I could take the Sony system (assuming I ever get my a7R III back from their repair center) but, regardless of what DPReview says, the files are just plain better that the a7R III and not by a tiny margin as they assert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ScOyyzwso

Knew he would answer that review.

Neilyb wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ScOyyzwso

Knew he would answer that review.

ROFLMAO - "...put the crack pipe down..."

Perhaps not how I would have presented the rebuttal but he is spot on.  In 6 years of shooting digital medium format, not once have I thought to myself that I wish this focused faster or I wish I could shoot 4K 4:2:2 video.  And the step up in AF accuracy and the fact that you can AF at any point in the frame of a 44x33 sensor with the Fuji GFX puts it leaps and bounds ahead of medium format cameras costing 5 to 10 times as much from Phase One or Hasselblad.  Do I wish I could shoot sports or birds in flight with it?  Um... no, not really...

Worst review I ever read. How can you base an image quality section of a review solely on resolution?