Comparing Fujifilm's GFX 50S to Canon's EOS 5DS R

I trust I'm not the only one who has had their eye on Fujifilm's GFX 50S. With its 51.4MP, 43.8mm x 32.9mm CMOS sensor, removable OLED EVF, 3.2" 2.36m-dot tilting touch screen, 117-point contrast-detection AF system, extended ISO 50-102400, weather-sealed magnesium-alloy body, and my love for my X100T (predecessor to the X100F), I've been seriously considering Fuji as a full-on replacement for my Canon kit. I can't say that I'm overly keen on the three frames per second the GFX pushes out, but I'm not sure it's a deal breaker. I need to see more. Well, thanks to pilot, photographer, videographer, and gear reviewer Daniel Jannes (aka The Daniel Life), we now have a much closer look of this new medium format, mirrorless camera.

To help give us an idea of what to expect from the GFX's features and performance, Daniel compares it to Canon's EOS 5DS R and even provides us with JPEG and raw files via his Google Drive so we can see the results ourselves. If you're interested in keeping up with Daniel's future works, be sure to subscribe to his YouTube channel and follow him via his Facebook or Instagram accounts.

[via Fuji Rumors]

Log in or register to post comments

33 Comments

I didn't learn much from this article.

Lee Morris's picture

Did you watch the video? It was pretty good.

Lane Shurtleff's picture

I agree. While I'm not familiar with this photographers previous work, there were a lot unnecessary ad placements. His use of terms for technical details falls way short. He should have elaborated on the focus hunting issues in dimly lit studio situations. What was his point saying he had to crank up the ISO for a still image of a liquor wall? It's on a tripod with NOTHING moving. Since I'm an old fart who's been using medium and large format cameras for decades, maybe I'm just expecting too much from these youtube comparison videos.

Grant Beachy's picture

Agree. The video was solid. Appreciate people taking the time to put these together.

Kenn Tam's picture

I'm impressed that Daniel took the time to make two videos. He did it once in German and then again in English. :)

Kenn Tam's picture

He was definitely in your face about it, but I doubt anyone is posting content for purely altruistic reason.

Adrian Pocea's picture

Obviously the medium format is gonna look better, but with the price of the body and the quintessential lenses added there you are talking about three four times the cost. And you still sacrifice the speed, the portability, the video, etc. And i am not necessarily talkIng about 5dsr but more about 5div or sony a7r2 vs GFX. And sometimes the shallow depth of field is too much, already with the full frame and 1.2 lenses is an overkill in my opinion. Not to mention video, where the depth of field if a super 35 sensor is ideal. Overall, too little reward for two much more money, and , after all, what does this Fuji brings so new vs a Pentax 645z? We know about the accessible medium format for years now, i don't see where Fuji is aiming with this, jumping straight from aps-c to medium format

Nice article, but there is not enough information regarding real reason for buying medium format - dynamic range (especially in dark and high tones) the possibility to recover from over/under exposed frames, the color range in those spots, also i couldn't understand with what minimum shutter speed it is possible to work with flash. Also i would like to know if there is a possibility of using a sync cable to work on 4x5 cameras with internal shutter lenses?
Those are just part of many other sides that i would like to see in a review of any medium format camera.

Kirk Darling's picture

"Also i would like to know if there is a possibility of using a sync cable to work on 4x5 cameras with internal shutter lenses?" Well, the answer to that question is "Yes." The lenses for 4x5 cameras each have internal flash synchronization and a PC contact.

Leigh Miller's picture

If anyone takes a crack at the RAW files he provided my advice is to skip Adobe Lightroom and use RAW CONVERTER EX 2.0 provided by Fujifilm on their website. I saw a big difference in rendering...LR made things look a bit muddy even though the GFX 50S uses a Bayer sensor...

I agree that this was a good video...sure he did some things differently than I would have but there are plenty of other generic tests out there to consider as well.

It could be because of the default settings that converter uses. It's like when people that use C1 say that their results are better than with LR, without considering the fact that LR by default does no user accessible adjustments that affect apparent image quality, where as C1 does a significant amount of adjustments by default.

Leigh Miller's picture

I considered that...my COP is set a similar way to LR from the last time I compared RAW converters...Silkypix is definitely better right out of the box.

Spy Black's picture

I think this camera will work great in product, still life, and landscape photography. It's going to take a backseat in fashion and wedding photography where you need autofocus speed. Of course, if you're old school you can probably make do with manual focus, but if you absolutely need fast AF you're gong to need something like a D5 or D500.

Leigh Miller's picture

Not true: https://youtu.be/0KLwk08g0mA

Many said the same of APSc, FF and M4/3 mirrorless cameras in the very near past as well. Perhaps you might have difficulty using the camera for weddings but I know very successful photographers using Phase Ones, Hassy's and film cameras for that.

Spy Black's picture

That's just static portrait work, any camera can do that, even a pocket camera. I'm talking movement and tracking an evolving live event where there are no second takes. You need fast, reliable autofocus, especially if you're shooting in low light. The GFX is not going to cut it.

Leigh Miller's picture

You missed the point...but I guess it's a subjective thing. Perhaps YOU can't shoot a wedding with that camera.

Spy Black's picture

No I didn't but you missed mine. Perhaps you should read my initial comment again.

Gypsy Frank's picture

Even in the old film days, MF was only for the formal portraits & detail shots. Anything that needed faster focusing was relegated to 35mm. Nothing has changed in this regard. No one is shooting an entire wedding on MF bodies. 35mm for the fast getting ready, ceremony & reception stuff and MF for everything else. Heck even shooting fashion you don't need super fast autofocus. Maybe you want good continuous tracking if you are capturing walk/run movement, but then again a shooter would just use a 35mm body suited for those types of things and shoot all static/posed shots on MF. From the reviews I've seen, focus is about as good as the Pentax 645Z and the new Hasselblad. I suspect for most MF shooters interested in this system, that's fast enough.

Spy Black's picture

Well yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. It's just not gong to cut it for situations where you need fast and accurate AF, especially if you're in a low light situations.

However I would like to see that change. I think the potential is there. Speed may be a issue regarding the mass of the lenses, but even that could be overcome. I think there will be a time when you can just rely on a digital MF to get all the job done.

For the moment, it is not the time.

Kirk Darling's picture

Well, back in my film days, 35mm was not considered satisfactory. It was medium format all the way. However, that did mean that quick-paced action was beyond our reach for the most part. And only the best 35mm shooters could follow-focus very well with manual 35mm cameras. Technology often changes styles--autofocusing permitted capturing the fast-moving events that are NOW requirements of the genre that were not requirements back when Mamiya TLRs were the most-used wedding camera.

Jacob Jexmark's picture

You are talking about runway photography. Fashion photography is something else. And the 50s will have no problem at all doing fashion photography considering conventional MF has ruled the fashion photography world for decades.

The difference today is that 35mm digital is giving us medium format film quality, so I wonder how successful this new Fujifilm camera will be.

Spy Black's picture

Have you ever shot fashion?

Jacob Jexmark's picture

Fashion, yes. Runway, no. People who equates them have no clue.

Spy Black's picture

That's not what I meant.

Comparing raw images from the Fujifilm GFX 50S on another site with those from the Hasselbalds X1D, the Fujifilm is noticeably less sharp. The Hasselblad shows stunning sharpness. Maybe the lens used for the Hasselblad samples are of better quality or maybe the sensor/AF may be lacking on the Fujifilm camera. I can't say I'm impressed with the image quality that I'm seeing so far from this camera.

The Hasselblad is also far less bulky. It's an odd situation because the bulk and shape of the Hasselblad X1D is more in line with the last of the medium format film cameras that Fujifilm made, like the GA645.

Gypsy Frank's picture

The new Hasselblad is also more menu centric whereas the 50S is continuing the Fujifilm tradition of physical dials that let you control the Triangle without have to jump into a menu. That sort of design uses more space, as does an articulating LCD which the Hasselblad lacks, bigger battery, external ports and what looks to be a more ergonomic grip. In my opinion, the 50S looks to be easier camera to hold and use.

Sharpness though I think is subjective. What may look less sharp to you may look fine to someone else. Also remember that dynamic range & data recovery is really what you are buying either camera for. You can always sharpen an image in post. Personally I can't really tell the difference between them....they both look acceptably sharp to me all other things being as equal as you can get them.

A smaller camera similar to what they had experience with in making their last medium format film cameras I think would have been more desirable. More and more people want less bulk and weight. Flip up displays also don't really take up too much more space.

Sharpness is not subjective; it is measurable. That someone is ok with less sharpness is another matter. You can't sharpen in post. Software sharpening is an illusion.

Dynamic range, at around 14 stops, is no different with those cameras as with the better 35mm SLRs. Cleaner and smoother images, for sure.

Jacob Jexmark's picture

I've seen absolutely no evidence in RAWs that the 50s in noticeably less sharp than the X1D. Please show us your source of this claim.

Also on the body size discussion, the 50s balances SO much better with the big MF glass. Why are you so fixed on the size of the body? The MF lenses are huge and heavy. I would NOT want a small dinky body behind them. And yes I have handled both.

The samples I was looking at was on the site that starts with dp.... They are all RAW samples. The Hasselblad samples are clearly sharper. As I said, it could be due to sharper lenses used with the Hasselblad and/or focusing issues with the Fujifilm, either through hardware problems or user error.

Why am I fixed on th size of the body's? Easy, because all things being equal most people prefer smaller and lighter cameras. You also don't support big and heavy lenses by just holding the camera body.