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


Previous comments
Jared Wolfe's picture

So having downloaded the full size JPEGs from his google drive I find myself thoroughly disappointed. Several miss focused shots, shots with motion blur - in the studio - and yes a few nicely focused shots. I get much more detailed and clean shots from my 10+ year old phase one back on my manual focus hasselblads with lenses that are 3 decades old. I hope the lacking image quality is just a result of the in camera JPEG engine and poor technique on behalf of the photographer. I suspect the sensor is much more capable than these JPEGs indicate.

Jacob Jexmark's picture

Having looked at other peoples work with the 50s, it's definitely a lack of technique.

@jared I compared RAWs from the Fujifilm to the Hasselblad X1D and the Hasselblad samples also had noticeably better detail. They looked great, while the Fujifilm samples are not impressive to me. I was thinking perhaps it has a focusing accuracy problem. Of course it could also be technique like Jacob mentioned.