Today, Fujifilm has announced the GFX100, their latest medium format camera. With a newly designed sensor with over 100 megapixels, in-body image stabilization, phase detection autofocus that covers approximately 100% of the frame, 4K video, and more, all coming in under $10,000, it looks like an absolute monster of a camera at an impressive price.
The GFX100 carries a bevy of impressive features that should make it a tempting option for many photographers (and potentially videographers). Check out its specs:
- 102 MP backside-illuminated Bayer sensor
- Sensor size: 43.8 mm by 32.9 mm
- No optical low-pass filter
- 5-axis in-body stabilization with up to 5.5 stops of stabilization
- Entire shutter assembly suspended by four springs to minimize shutter shock
- Phase detection autofocus with approximately 100% coverage and 210% faster autofocusing speeds over the GFX 50R
- Face and eye detection
- Dual SD slots
- 16-bit raw
- ISO range: 100-12,800 (expandable to 50-102,400)
- TTL 256-zone metering
- Focal plane shutter
- 4K at 30p and 400 Mbps and 10-bit
- F-log Rec.2020
- 4:2:2 uncompressed HDMI output
- 16 film simulations
- 3.2-inch touchscreen, 2.36 million dots with tridirectional tilt
- 6.15 in. x 6.44 in. x 4.05 in. (including EVF)
- 6.15 in. x 5.67 in. x 2.96 in. (without EVF)
- Weight: 1,400 g (49.4 oz) with EVF, two batteries, and memory card
- Dust and weather-resistant magnesium alloy body with built-in vertical grip
- 95 weather-sealed points
The GFX100 will be available on June 27 and carries a suggested retail price of $9,999.95. It looks to be quite the exciting camera! Check out more images below. Preorder yours here.
Hey, I'd actually like to know. I've always assumed this site held more seasoned enthusiasts and professionals.
I don't know if you can talk about it here, but if you'd be willing to PM me, I'd love to chat about it and the overall industry gear culture a bit.
And for the past years, what my body (severe artritis) needs is something else from what I want. My body needs light stuff.
Aesthetics and cost aside.... I really want this. But I also really like having a home lol. Apparently this doesn't fall under the "I need this because I want this"
16-bit raw makes this camera incredible especially considering the price point.
Where's that darned lottery ticket!? :-)
Sees headline "All under $10,000"
Sees actual price "$9,999.95"
oh...........
Right?!?! Show me the lie 🤣
How did we ever get 12MP images good enough for ads and entire wall installations up to this point? And now we're looking a 100MP for 'commercial' shoots -- because we all know the internet needs 100MP, right?
If we're being a little honest here. A ton of work for today's ads are solely for the web. How much of it, AND, how many people actually produce tangible hard products for display? I would venture to guess not many as a total. And if I'm looking to do video work.. shouldn't I just go out and get a proper unit like a RED?
I'm clearly missing something here... But I'm sure someone under 30 will jump at the chance to enhance my feeble thoughts and fill me with all I need.
I’d argue that this could be more for fine art photographers. People like Mike Kelley shoot architecture but he also sells $100k worth of fine art prints a year. If you make money selling large 4x6’ prints, 100mpx could be useful.
You are right though, most billboards and web ads don’t need this resolution but then again, I could see some really creative things coming out in the ad world with resolution like this. You’ve seen the new screen saver drone shots on the new Apple TV right? Stuff like is what the future of photography could be with ultra high def files.
I could also see it being useful for people who do a lot of compositing or similar things where they’re putting together different parts of many images. We do a lot of that in my line of work and starting from higher resolution source files is always useful.
I get what you're saying but also, idk, things evolve, tech improves, we move on. There was no chance we were ever going to stay at 12mp. As camera resolution has increased, so has screen resolution, screen sizes, color gamut support, etc. The market responds to the market.
As for buying a RED as a first camera because you want to film, that's a terrible decision for a few reasons. But to address the conceptual position you're proposing with that, it's not one or the other; bottom of the barrel or best of the best. Much of the market exists in the middle. This camera doesn't aim at everyone; just more at the middle than digital MF ever has. It's still ultimately for upper tier, and I can attest that advertising/commercial marketing bids aren't super messed up about the difference between a $3K camera and a $10K camera. $10K to 40K warrants a bit more discussion for sure, but ultimately this conversation about "is it worth it for the cost" isn't really being had in the circles that this camera primarily aims at. If it works and makes their jobs more efficient (read: it will), it will be bought/rented and written off in bids/taxes later.
I’ll be feeling very uncomfortable telling my wife it cost $1000. She’s used to hearing about cameras and lens costing in the reasonable $200-400 region. She might not let me buy it.
I just think it would be cool to have a good single malt with someone named Fergal O'Callaghan.
Yes! Canon, Nikon, and Sony also need to make an affordable medium format camera.