I thought the announcement of the Fujifilm GFX100RF would generate more discussion, but the response has been a bit muted. I wonder how come? Here go a few of my own thoughts:
- It's a medium-format X100[x], naturally. Yes, there are some differences, mainly in the viewfinder, but you can't have everything.
- It's very cool. As in hip. Or however young people express that these days. Carry one of these, and the one per thousand persons-on-the-street who recognize it at all will be impressed.
- I think it's likely to be very practical as a picturetaker, taking its specs into consideration. Not everyone can use 102-MP 43.8 x 32.9mm-sensor images, but for those who can....
And take a gander at this:
Wow! That's amazing. Half the lens is in the body. There's your reason why the camera has a fixed lens. Try to imagine that thing as an interchangeable one—well, ya can't. I wonder how far that rear element is from the sensor.
The prospect of aspect
People are quickly—too quickly—arriving at conclusions about the dedicated aspect ratio dial. I personally am going to reserve and withhold judgement until I actually handle the camera and give it a try in real life. Jonas Rask, in his "biased as can be" review / love-letter to the GFX 100RF, actually has a whole section on how the GFX100RF is the digital XPan, in the section titled, "The 65:24 ratio—TX1/XPan mode engaged!" He has many examples of pictures taken with the camera in "XPan mode," including this attractively stylized one.
Anyway, it turns out the sensor is natively 4:3, because the 4:3 aspect ratio uses the entire sensor. But there are many other choices—just about all the choices as far as I can tell, from square to panoramic and including 6x7, 4x5, and a vertical 3:4, so you can shoot 4:3 ratio as verticals with the camera held in the horizontal position. Shades of the old 645 cameras like the Fujifilm GS645s I reviewed long ago in...where? I guess it was in the original Camera & Darkroom. Anyway, I want to see how that's implemented between the dial, the viewfinder, and the files before I rush to judgement. Could be it's not much more than other cameras offer in their menus, but maybe it's done better.
By the way, you really do need to read Jonas Rask's review. Not only was he deeply involved in the development of the camera, but he was the one who suggested it to Fujifilm—and Fujifilm actually admitted in public that they initiated the camera as a result of his suggestion! That's amazing. Companies almost never do that. A company once marketed a variant of one of their cameras based on my suggestion, and they acknowledged that to me, but didn't acknowledge it to the public. Oh well—there went another seventeen seconds of my allotted 15 minutes of fame. Here's one small fun nugget from Jonas's article: the GFX100RF doesn't have a leaf shutter like the tiny X100IV's; it's the exact same shutter.
I like the GFX100RF well enough as it is (without a lot of "if only it had..." objections, is what I mean), and I'm very interested in it on a number of levels. It's been a lot of fun to look into it and I'm still eager to learn more. I think it will appeal to the exclusive coterie of connoisseurs who can afford a "point-and-shoot" with a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor, but it would be more accessible to me and others like me if it were full-frame and had half the megapixels and cost half as much. I guess that would defeat the uniqueness of the whole exercise, but me buying a $5,000 digital camera is just not going to happen. It would be like taking a Piper Cub into Class Alpha airspace—I just don't fly at that altitude. I don't even think I could get one of these to review. At least not easily, or any time soon.
Just like the digital good old days
Fun stuff, though. It would be interesting to count how many "new" cameras in the past few years are truly all new, such that they embody new ideas, new thinking, new design. Not very many, is my guess. This is surely one, and that makes it fun and interesting.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Mike Plews: "'Digital Xpan' completely put the zap on my head. The samples are enchanting. If you look up what a clean XpanII/43mm combo goes for, the Fuji starts to look like a bargain. It's nice to see something bold come to market. Fuji has a history of medium-format fixed lens film cameras and the GFX feels like a logical extension of that approach. Can't afford it but it sure is growing on me."
Stan B.: "Yes, I wondered if the lens retracted when the camera was shut off upon seeing that diagram! The camera seems fun, with some features that promise to be quite useful, or prove quite trivial in actuality...I'll never get to find out, so it's yet another exercise in living vicariously. It's one very practical, innovative and yet another, somewhat odd brick of a camera in the same sentence. A 50-MP $3k version woulda been one hot commodity indeed!"
Mike replies: I see what you did there. Glad I didn't correct it as I started to.
Tim Walters: "I’ll be trading in both my X100V and my GFX100S for it, which should reduce the pain a bit."
Andrew L (partial comment): "I like most everything about the design. I like that it's tall—a taller grip makes a camera so much more comfortable. My Pentax K-1 has the best camera grip I've ever used, and it's because it's tall (and well-shaped)."
Andy Munro: " I think the lack of interest is mainly down to its price and its size. It is too big for a compact. Throw in the non-stabilised ƒ/4 lens and the number of potential buyers is even fewer. The only plus as far as I can see is the ability to crop using the 102-MP sensor. Good try, but I can't help but think that the X100VI is about the maximum size for compact. It's also got stabilisation, and an ƒ/2 lens."
Patrick Medd: "For the past year I've been using a Hasselblad X1D II with the 45mm ƒ/4P 'affordable' lens from the Hasselblad X system (secondhand, this outfit will set you back about half the price of the GFX100RF). One of the revelations of that system is the crop modes, including XPan and my favourite square and 5x4 crops. Yes, you could crop after the fact but you need to compose before the fact and the crop modes allow you to do that. A dedicated control to access them quickly sounds like a good idea to me."
Tex Andrews (partial comment): "This is the first piece of camera gear I have ever preordered (except some Kickstarter stuff, which were neither cameras nor lenses). I expect it to be absolutely wonderful."
[The full text of partial comments can be found in the full Comments Section, accessible by clicking on "Comments" in the footer, or on the title of the post. —Ed.]
Gary Booth: "I believe that the rear lens element in the Leica Q's is a mere 0.8mm away from the sensor."
James Bullard: "The price tag muted my reaction by more than a bit."
If I win the lottery, I'll buy two and give you one...
Posted by: Yonatan Katznelson | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 12:54 AM
I find it interesting and I wish them well, but if I somehow stumbled upon an extra $5000 tomorrow I would immediately buy a used Leica Q3, a carbon fiber tripod and sardine class airfare to Europe. That would be a better fit for me, personally, and leave money to get to where I want to go for a German "Artist" visa.
As someone who does almost only landscapes the f/4 lens and lack of OIS are both far more limiting than the f/1.7 and stabilization on the Leica.
I do wish either would learn from Pentax and put a software ND filter into the cameras :)
Posted by: William Lewis | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:02 AM
What a fascinating camera. I wish Leica had done some optical design like this on their Q2 and Q3 cameras because those lenses stick way out. Little bodies, bulbous lenses.
Posted by: Kodachromeguy | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:04 AM
Looks like a fantastic camera with a lot of interesting features. Some photography enthusiasts might find the price point a little on the high side for a camera that is more like a point-and-shoot and probably a secondary camera to a camera system that they already have. In Canada, the Fujifilm GFX100RF works out to about $7000.00
Posted by: Gary Nylander | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:42 AM
As a street shooter, I think it could be excellent, since it would be easy to change from various field’s of view in a moment, but still maintaining very high MP counts, like a mini zoom. FF FOV equivalents of 28/35/40/50/70/90 are all very possible when cropped. In such situations high shutter speeds to prevent movement blur, and generous depth of view to keep the layers of an image more or less in focus, do not necessitate IBIS or the fastest lens.
Then, of course, it can be a very petite, digital version of an X-Pan, which might swing it for me. As a landscape camera it will also excel.
If you can handle the very large files, and are not bound to the shallowest depth of field, it looks like a real winner. But the price . . . Hmmm.
Posted by: Robert | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 02:15 AM
Me: Looks at his 21mm Super-Angulon...
[But don't you mean a Super-Angulon for a view camera, on a lensboard? Not something you have to insert through a lensmount on a (comparatively) small-format automatic camera.
But yeah, I take your point. --Mike]
Posted by: B.J.Scharp | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 03:32 AM
Recently, Fuji seem to have fun with intruducing new dials, first a film simulation dial, and now the aspect ratio dial.
They claim it's a new thing but I believe Pentax was first: in 2011 Pentax released the Pentax Q, which indeed had a dedicated dial that worked as aspect ratio or film simulation dial (your choice):
https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/q/
It also had a built-in flash and exchangeable leaf shutter (!) lenses, despite its diminuitive size.
I used to own a "Q" with the 45mm equiv 01 prime lens - it really was a delight to use.
And the Pentax JPG color science is also great!
https://www-pentafan-com.translate.goog/customimage/?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en
Coming back to Fuji, I'm strongly looking forward to the return of Fuji to the compact camera market with their rumored 1 inch sensor camera arriving later this year! (so I am quite at the other end of the spectrum compared to the GFX100RF..:)
Posted by: Freddy S. | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 05:03 AM
I have never seen a cutaway of the Sony Rx1 but I think it would look something like that of the GXF100rf.
The RX1 was the first Sony FF digital. Sony reportedly worked with Zeiss on the camera. The 35mm F2 lens is built into the body of the RX1 in a similar way.The Sony lens extends a little when switched on. It's a lens that has achieved legendary status with Sony. Rumours abound that Sony is bringing out a new version of the RX1.
Posted by: Mike Fewster | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 07:18 AM
No, I meant the Leica 21mm/f4 and 21mm/f3.4 Super-Angulon lenses for the Leica-M.
Ken Rockwell has a very good picture in his review.
It almost touches the shutter, and can't be used on the CL or the M5, as it interferes with the swinging metering arm in those cameras.
Posted by: B.J.Scharp | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 07:46 AM
I saved a copy of that lens diagram to send you, because I thought it was THE salient feature of the camera. I see you found it, and reacted like I did.
So have there been any interchangeable lenses that protruded (intruded?) into the body?
Posted by: Luke | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 08:53 AM
"one per thousand persons-on-the-street who recognize it at all will be impressed."
My OCOL for a while was a little Zeiss 21 adapted to a Sony NEX. I happened to see someone else with a similar setup, and we had a brief discussion about the lenses. His girlfriend and my wife just stood there. I said, "they think we're nuts", and they agreed.
Posted by: Luke | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 09:07 AM
I watched the PetaPixel TV review and thought: if I had the money available, I'd probably buy it. I almost never think that about any new camera but the placement of the viewfinder, the design and interface and the easy switching to virtual focal lengths does it for me. IBIS would be nice but maybe with the leaf shutter, I'd be okay without.
Posted by: Bahi | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 09:42 AM
One of the ways I forced myself to use the Hasselblad X1D which I very briefly and extremely unprofitably owned for a while was the 'XPan' setting. It felt totally fake, and the resulting images seemed fake to me as well. I doubt this is any different, although I like the look of the camera in general.
Incidentally, as I've probably mentioned before, I messed-up the opportunity to own a brand new unopened box XPan and 45mm lens for around 1600 bucks about a decade ago. Since then my attitude to the camera can roughly be described as "sour grapes".
Having said that, only about 1 out of a thousand photographers can do anything interesting with the camera. The rest squeeze out the same sort of cliché images - and undoubtedly I would be doing the same.
Posted by: mani | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 10:59 AM
The aspect ratio dial really intrigues me.
"One Lens, One Camera, One Year" (TM), One Aspect Ratio as you have advocated certainly is a most valuable learning method for becoming a disciplined photographer.
Therefore, I've been very appreciative of spending several years exclusively using the 35mm lens and 3x2 aspect ratio. So much so, that when I tried using a 50mm, I kept placing myself in the wrong place for the shot!
I've coupled that with really paying attention to composition and studying Henri Cartier-Bresson's truly astounding composition skills - almost exclusively using the 3x2 aspect.
Several years later... I'm mostly a two lens photographer having a lot of fun with a 90mm to isolate and compress. I'm also finding different aspect ratios are frequently more suitable for the situation: 5x4 for verticals and printing and 16x9 for screen display. Panorama aspect ratios are often necessary, notably for website banner images.
So, count me very intrigued. One Lens, One Camera, Many possibilities.
Posted by: Tom Stermitz | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 11:42 AM
Very interesting note about the lens elements' intrusion into the body! Makes perfect sense for compactness...and further explains Fuji's excuses why the camera doesn't feature IBIS (space issue). This also makes me wonder if Sony's RX1 cameras' lenses intruded into the body!
I may give the GFX100RF a look. It's slightly interesting. But I certainly don't need it and remain steadfastly preferential to my Leica Q3 and Q3-43 for fixed-lens photography. In addition to their IBIS I will also point out that their sensors feature three independent full-frame resolutions. That is, it can record at a full 60mp, or 36mp, or 18.5mp...each in full-frame (not cropped). That can be extremely handy when you really don't need or want a 60mp file. (The files from the GFX100RF will almost certainly be the same as from the GFX100s cameras ... around 150mp.)
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 12:35 PM
It seems impressively compact in most of the product images, almost pocketable. But the lens protrudes considerably more with the included clear filter and mount—necessary for weather-sealing as well as protecting the front element of the integral lens—along with the rectangular hood.
Posted by: Chris Kern | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:19 PM
"Half the lens is in the body. There's your reason why the camera has a fixed lens."
You might have been interested in the Sony RX1R II, which featured an excellent 35mm lens that intruded well into the camera body. It featured a leaf shutter, no IBIS, and, with a mere 42 megapixels, was cheaper than the Fuji, too.
https://camerasize.com/compare/#943,638
Posted by: brian | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:32 PM
Seems it is similar to my Bronica RF645. Which I will stick with because it is priced beyond my camera budget...like forever.
Posted by: Joe C. | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 01:33 PM
I have thoughts on this camera too! They might be more pressing thoughts if the camera wasn't $4800, which is too rich for my blood. But...
I like most everything about the design. I like that it's tall - a taller grip makes a camera so much more comfortable. My Pentax K-1 has the best camera grip I've ever used, and it's because it's tall (and well-shaped). I don't mind the aspect ratio dial, but I think it has a couple too many options on it (put the obscure ones under a couple of custom options). I don't care for the unprogrammable front rocker for changing digital zoom. I personally wouldn't use it often.
The lack of IBIS doesn't bother me on its own, but the relatively slow lens combined with no IBIS might not be ideal in some edge cases. I think it's a bit of a miss for some users not to be able to create shallowed depth-of-field for the medium format-obsessed - but, personally, I'd just enjoy this camera as the ultimate snapshot camera to take with me on a strap everywhere (maybe paired with a Ricoh GRIII for the times when I can't wear the bigger camera on my body).
Posted by: Andrew L | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 02:00 PM
It'd be fun to rent one for a weekend.
Posted by: Bob Rosinsky | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 02:20 PM
Rear elements protruding into camera bodies are also in Biogons, first designed by Ludwig Bertell more than half century ago.
Posted by: Dan Khong | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 02:49 PM
On the plus side, it's doubtful you could do this with a Topcon lens.... :-)
"He has many examples of pictures taken with the camera in "XPan mode," including this attractively stylized one."
Posted by: James | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 03:18 PM
Anybody else thought "35mm Biogon for the Contax II rangefinder" when they saw that lens going deep inside the body?
Posted by: Michel Hardy-Vallée | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 04:05 PM
Mike, looking at photos of the top plate of the RF, the sensor plane mark is just right behind the lugs, so that last lens element looks like it's almost touching the sensor!
I've been trying to make sense of this camera, but I can't mainly because of that slow lens and the relatively small "MF" sensor. A Leica Q has a lens that is 2.5 stops faster and its smaller FF sensor is only 2/3 of a stop behind the RF's in light gathering, so the Q has 2.5-0.7=1.8 stops more shooting envelope than the RF. That is, to expose a dark scene for the same noise level on both cameras, the Q has 1.8 stops more margin which you can use for a faster shutter speed. This may be important if you're trying to take a photo in a dark theater.
Doing the same calculation, the X100 is only 2/3 of stop behind the RF in dark scenes, which seems astounding to me. And this doesn't account for the image sensor stabilization in both the Q and later X100s which can add more shooting margin at slower shutter speeds.
Of course, this is at the limits and ignores depth of field. When there's plenty of light so f/4 is not a limiting factor, the RF will beat the Q in noise because of its larger sensor. I think this is an underappreciated aspect of digital medium format sensors: to fully take advantage of them, you need to add even more light than when you're shooting smaller sensors. Their advantage is that they can actually use more light to get you less noise and not blow out your highlights.
Posted by: Andre Y | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 05:38 PM
This is the first piece of camera gear I have ever preordered (except some Kickstarter stuff, which were neither cameras nor lenses). I expect it to be absolutely wonderful. There are a TON of negative comments about this camera, all of them centered on 2 things:
1. F4. AFAIC, this whackadelic obsession with shallow DOF is just....weird. The Bokeh is reportedly not awesome, but in the images I've seen it's far from awful.
2. NO IBIS!!!!!! The Sky is falling!!!!! You know, some of us remember the days when not only was there no IBIS, but no AF either. And of course...OF COURSE!!!...all of the images created during those dark ages were horrible. Ahem.
It's hard for me to wrap my head around all these negative comments. Let me just say that I've never seen a great image where critical sharpness was the single most important thing about the image. Oh, I've seen some cool macro images that were sharp enough to cut me....but are these truly "great" images?
So, I'll take the awesomeness of this new tool for extraordinary imaging and worry not about whether people are going to use loupes to view my images.
Posted by: Tex Andrews | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 06:58 PM
You can’t please all the photographers all the time, but I suspect this one will please enough dawgs enough of the time to be a success (within the limited market for a fixed-lens, $5,000 camera).
The dichotomy with the GFX100RF (does R=rangefinder style, F=fixed lens?) is between the implicit IQ of the large 102MP sensor and the do-everything-in-camera design of the aspect ratio dial + zoom lever + 20 film simulation options, which will likely appeal to different groups of users.
Is the GFX100RF lens too small or the Q lens too large? Depends whether you want built-in OIS (good for 2-3 stops of lens stabilization), a beautiful distance scale for zone focusing and an f1.7 aperture (which is capable of decent portrait DoF for a 28mm-e lens). I think most would favor the Q3 design but prefer the compact nature of the Fuji lens (although not so compact with the filter adapter and larger lens hood). Choice is good.
Posted by: Bernard Schneider | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 07:08 PM
Fuji certainly put a lot of effort and glass into flattening the field and making the lens telecentric on the back side. It reminds me of the lens on the Olympus XA which I believe was the only lens that was both a telephoto and wide angle lens ever made for 35mm photography. Maybe for any format, I can’t think of another.
I certainly hope the performance is not reminiscent of that lens.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 08:13 PM
Oh, I used to have a Nikon Nikkor-O 2.1cm f/4 lens
Like this
https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0001/
I actually bought it because it and the viewfinder were cheaper than just the Super-Angulon viewfinder for the 47 mm on the Brooks Veri-wide clone that had lost its finder
Man that was a great camera…
So is that Fuji unit focusing or internal focusing? I’m guessing internal, but I don’t know.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 08:25 PM
I'm a happy Leica Q2 user but find that 28 mm is a bit too wide. I've quickly become used to using the 28 mm lens for a 35 mm FOV (and love having digital frame lines), the differing characteristics of the lenses notwithstanding but find that I lose too much resolution for big prints if I digitally crop much more. I've been debating whether to upgrade to a Q3 or take a deep breath and go the Q3 43 (40 mm is my favourite FF focal length) and lose the wider FOV. Now the Fuji GFX 100RF has complicated things. The extra resolution and MF sensor would let me do things I can't do on the Leica at all but also come close to matching both a Q3 and Q3 43 - I could definitely live with 31 mpx at 50 mm FF equivalent. Oh well - it's just a first world problem ...
Posted by: Bear. | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 08:27 PM
"... 'XPan' setting. It felt totally fake, and the resulting images seemed fake to me as well." -mani
Agreed, they're not true panoramics- they're severe crops of a 28mm (equivalent) image! The other provided format options are fine, but these are emasculated, faux panos.
Posted by: Stan B. | Monday, 24 March 2025 at 09:40 PM
In the 'old' days, before retrofocus lenses became good, wide and extra wide lenses all extended into the camera. I have a 15mm Hologon for Leica that I bought new in 1974 that comes awfully close to the film or sensor. It can just! be used on digital M's, but doesn't really work because of the nasty incident angle of the light. The Biogon in the Hasselblad SWC is also very close to the film plane.
The Xpan setting on this Fuji doesn't interest me because while I had all three lenses for my TX-1, I used the 30 about 70%, the 45 25% and the 90 5% of the time. 40mm is just too long. This would translate into about a 50mm lens on an Xpan.
It's not a camera that I'd get, but I like to see a company try something different. Today's development costs are so high that most stick to a conservative, iterative approach.
Posted by: Henning | Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 01:50 AM
@Bear’s comment above is onto something. I find the Qs lens choices awkward - don’t care for 28mm, and the 43 is a bit too tight. So a Q3 and give up the pixels in a quest for 35mm? That’s a little odd especially if worrying about yet smaller crops. . And the Q lens is too big to tuck away. Rather an M10 and a small Color Skopar.
This new Fuji does have a few particularities, with the classic small lens f4 is one, but it is much smaller than the Q. It has pixels to crop for other composed focal lengths, with plenty enough left over for yet more. Maybe that’s the way to understand this camera. Yea, IBIS would be nice, but none of the28 M cameras have it either, and people have survived.
Still a bit of a mystery, but light weight and all that functionality is intriguing.
Posted by: Geoff Goldberg | Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 08:01 AM
It’s a unique camera and I want one; but it will be impossible to get for two years. I don’t mind f4 and I’d bet money Vivian Maier, Diane Arbus and Lee Miller stopped down their Rolleis at least a little. On the other hand not much is being said about the UI of menus. Same as the other Fujis? Then on to the Q3 43… I want one of those too!!!
In the meantime I’ll use my Ricoh GR iii x 40mm.
Honestly all cameras are good these days. I’m a senior so it seems just yesterday everyone was talking about Nikon F versus Topcon! 😂. I’m patiently waiting for Mikes thoughts after using the RF. Cheers !
Larry
Posted by: Larry Kenner | Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 04:54 PM
I was looking at getting a Leica and now I am a little torn after this release.
Posted by: Wedding Photographer in DC | Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 10:29 PM
The goodness of shallow depth of field is overrated.
In the old days, when we used *real* medium format (2-1/4") film cameras for weddings and events, their shallow depth of field was an enemy. Dim focusing screens- even with flip-up magnifiers- meant the manual focusing had to be very precise in low light or dark interiors, where you could barely see your subject through the focusing screen.
When we were able to use 35mm instead of medium format, the depth of field increase was a godsend.
Posted by: ronin | Thursday, 27 March 2025 at 11:34 AM
A great camera with a very limited target market.
Firstly, that it is a fixed lens camera, no matter how you crop, you are losing quality (vs. same sensor and changing lenses).
Secondly, that the fixed lens is of very limited appeal - too long for landscapers, too short and too dark for portrait work. How many people use 28mm equivalent for their work ???
Thirdly, it is 5k USD thing in a world where 2.5k buys you a stellar quality kit for your specific field.
So I think this is a great camera, for very few photographers.
[28mm has for a long time been popular and considered standard in Japan. A 28mm fixed lens on a camera suggests it's aimed at least in part to the Japanese market. --Mike]
Posted by: niko | Sunday, 30 March 2025 at 03:19 PM