GFX100S vs X-H2 tested for 2 weeks

[Paul Szilard]

I had the pleasure of borrowing the following for 2 weeks:

• GFX100S
• GF 30mm F/3.5 R WR
• GF 35-70mm F/4.5-5.6 WR
• GF 80mm F/1.7 R WR
• GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR

I shot some portraits, landscape and close ups, against my X-H2 with equivalent focal length optics. I am willing to share my conclusions and pictures, but only if I get some interest here, otherwise there is no point in spending hrs put it all together.

[Greybeard]

Hi Paul - thanks for the offer - I'd be curious in your overall conclusion if you don't get enough interest to do the detailed work.

[SGinNorcal]

Do we have to promise to like what you write?  I'm kidding.  Sounds potentially interesting.  Some of us shoot Gfx and APSC.

[Paul Szilard]

3 hours ago, SGinNorcal said:

Do we have to promise to like what you write?  I'm kidding.  Sounds potentially interesting.  Some of us shoot Gfx and APSC.

LOL. No, you can disagree. I love intelligent and humorous banter.

Ok, here is my text summary, with images to follow, once I have sorted the 100GB of files I took on this exercise. And this describes one of the unavoidable side effects of shooting 200MB raw files. This will eat up your storage and what's worse is the space in your DAM. My recommendation is that you get to be diligent and ruthless when culling. Convert to JPG (or just KEEP the JPG) for the majority and then keep RAW files for the specials. I do have about 90TB of space however, so not a big problem for me.

Re the camera: I was using a GFX100S, not the latest GFX100ii. Never the less it sports a really useful IBIS and good AF, which is accurate if not the fastest on the planet. I realise that the GFX100ii will out perform the one I had, and I think if I did decide to join the G brigade, I would probably go to that one.

Size: I had absolutely no problems with size, but then I wasn't taking this hiking up the Himalayas. I loved the larger LCD and viewfinder.

DOF: I was expecting a narrower DOF than the XF, but I was still amazed that even at f16 landscapes were not totally in focus. This means that one has to shoot f22 or f32, which slows down the shutter speed and also makes me wonder why I would spend huge $$ for f1.7 lenses!

Lenses: I had 2 primes and 2 zooms to play with. Other than physical size, I could not detect any noticeable image IQ difference. For portraiture I was shooting f4 or f5.6 anyway.

Image IQ: Of course this is where the rubber hits the road, isn't? The GFX certainly does deliver. What was really funny though, was that I shot very similar pics on my X-H2 and had them in the same folder on my drive. On more than one occasion, I would open a subtropical rain forest shot or a portrait, and think, vow medium format is brilliant - only to discover that I was looking at a shot from the X-H2! This is not to say that the GFX isn't even better, but it is to say that the X-H2 is outstanding, when used correctly. The G shots excelled in not blowing out the hightlights or clipping the blacks, and the colours in 16 bit are just unparalleled. The H2 however, not only saves a motza in drinking vouchers, but is MUCH faster focussing (birds in flight, anyone?) and you can shoot wide apertures to get similar results.

Conclusion: It's a win-win choice. If the wallet can fund a GFX system in addition to an FX system, then you won't be disappointed, but for now, I am very happy having an X-H2 and an X-H2S and my 19 lenses. The REAL BAD NEWS is that my friend bought the GFX100ii and 2 lenses, but he is lusting after a Hasselblad (foolish person) and had threatened to offer me his 1 month old GFX kit at a good price! Please send donation to my PayPal account, so that I can do a long term review!

[SGinNorcal]

I have the Gfx50S and XT5.  Its surprising how close the XT5 can get to the Gfx.  I just uploaded some shots from the North CA coast, I was shooting both.  Capture One lists the shots by time of day so going through them alternates for each camera.  At times it was easy when I had the 70-300 on the XT5.  But when shooting with a shorter focal length on the XT5, its not as noticeable without zooming into the photo.  The Gfx will hold much more detail once you punch into the shot.  While the Gfx has higher IQ, if I had to own just one, it would be the XT5, its just much more versatile.

[Paul Szilard]

22 hours ago, SGinNorcal said:

Snip 8<

The Gfx will hold much more detail once you punch into the shot.  While the Gfx has higher IQ, if I had to own just one, it would be the XT5, its just much more versatile.

I agree with you 100%. (I chose the X-H2, but in this compare it is the same IQ as the X-T5).