Fuji GFX 100 Review After Using It Professionally for Three Months, Part Two: Autofocus, File Size, and Blackout

Fuji GFX 100 Review After Using It Professionally for Three Months, Part Two: Autofocus, File Size, and Blackout

This is part two of my three-part, unreasonably in-depth real world shooting review of the GFX 100 after having shot with it as my primary camera professionally for the last three months. 

Today, we’ll discuss autofocus performance, viewfinder blackout, file size, and how these will affect how you decide to shoot with the GFX 100 system.


Since I ended part one comparing the GFX 100 to using the X-T3, I feel like this is the right place to introduce the topic of autofocus. And again, as we discussed in the first article about this camera being hard to compare to other cameras, the autofocus in the GFX 100 has been both a blessing and a curse, but your reaction will be highly dependent on what and how you shoot.

Because the performance of autofocus is so dependent on what it is that you are focusing on, I’ll take a brief moment to remind you what I shoot personally. This is important, because if you don’t shoot similar things, my reactions may be more or less of an issue for you.

I shoot advertising for activewear fashion and fitness campaigns. I am not a sports photographer, in the sense that I am not on the sideline capturing any live game action. I shoot models or athletes in studio or on location while maintaining some level of control over their movements. I say “some,” because once you get a great athlete moving, it’s best to simply keep up rather than over-direct them. Because of this, I need a camera that can quickly grab and maintain focus on a subject that will at times be moving erratically and quite often, be moving at a seemingly inhuman pace.

I’ve been doing this for years with my Nikon D850 (or equivalent) bodies. I can generally shoot freely at pace with just about any moving subject without really having any worry about not being able to focus in time. Even when using single shot autofocus and focusing and recomposing multiple times on a moving subject, I don’t have many problems keeping subjects acceptably sharp. The only real speed concern I have is whether or not my strobes can fire rapidly enough to keep up with the burst speed.

That focus ability has continued with my X-T3. While it took a second to figure out all of the new continuous focus modes, once I got the hang of it, I was able to keep almost any shot in focus with that camera as well.

The GFX 100 has the same super-fast focusing system as the X-T3. At least, in theory. The sensor is able to move around those focus points as quickly as a subject can move. But, in actual practice, the size and weight of the lenses means that retaining focus in continuous mode can be a challenge. The continuous autofocus on the GFX 100 is far superior to anything available on its medium format competition like the Hasselblad or the Phase One. But, I have found that it’s not nearly fast enough for me to feel like I can really depend on it.

With the other medium format systems, I use single point autofocus, then focus and recompose, shooting at a high enough aperture to provide sufficient depth of field to keep the subject in focus. Despite the availability of continuous autofocus on the GFX 100, I find I need to simply ignore that and replicate the single point focus and recompose method. Or, if the subject is moving especially fast and I want to fire off multiple shots, I have resorted to manually zone focusing, then just spraying and praying (more on this in a second).

But again, this is a result of the subjects I shoot personally having to move at super high rates of speed. When taking portraits, landscapes, or normally paced street shots, I’ve had no problem with focus at all. So, depending on what you shoot, this may or may not be a problem for you.

Also, as a quick note about using autofocus on the GFX 100 with regards to video. Don’t do it. Actually, I jest. Sort of. If you are vlogging or want to set the camera up to record an interview or something similar where the subject won’t be moving through the frame, autofocus will work great. And, like stills, autofocus can keep up with a moving subject quite adequately provided the subject isn’t moving too quickly.

The problem is that the GF lenses, while amazingly sharp, are really only built for stills. They breathe when focusing, meaning that they slightly zoom in and out when acquiring focus. This isn’t a problem with stills. But, if you’re using autofocus during video and the camera needs to change focus points, the camera will zoom in and out in a very noticeable way, changing the frame size in the process. It’s not ideal.  

Note: I have the 45mm, 63mm, and 110mm primes. So, my experience is based on those three lenses primarily.

The video the camera captures when already focused is terrific. It’s just that right this instant, in 2019, the lens selections for autofocus in motion aren’t there yet. It’s a young system, and Fuji will get there. But right now, if I do shoot video with the GFX 100, I will more than likely just manually focus, which is made significantly easier with the focus peaking tools included with the camera. 

Most likely, however, I will just opt to shoot video with the X-T3 instead, which has a wider selection of lenses and produces video without any noticeable drop-off in a smaller form factor.


Now onto the spraying and praying. I hate spraying and praying. One of the skills I pride myself on as a photographer is being able to click the shutter at exactly the right moment during a movement (or at least what I feel is right at the time). So, if a model is running, jumping, dancing, or doing anything in-between, I don’t make a habit of just pressing down the high-speed shutter and hoping the camera captures the right moment. I only want to press the shutter deliberately once or twice to get what I want. There’s nothing wrong with doing it the other way. I just personally don’t like to.

So, the biggest frustration I’ve had with the GFX 100 is the blackout period between when I press the shutter and when I get a clear image in the viewfinder to be able to recompose for a rapid-fire second or third shot in succession.

Now, before I go into more detail, it think it’s important to point out that the GFX 100 is not designed as a sports camera. In fact, when trying out the system in the early weeks on portraits, travel, street shooting, and other less speed-dependent applications, I didn’t notice this problem at all. It was only when I tried to apply it to my own professional work and style of shooting that it occurred to me this could be a problem.

And to be clear, Fujifilm doesn’t claim that this camera is really optimized to be shooting fast-moving action. But, as I mentioned earlier, I live in a world somewhere between sports photography and fashion photography, and in the real world, often have to make a camera do what it’s not intended to do. So, if you do find yourself needing to use medium format to shoot fast-moving subjects, this particular section might apply to you.

The Fujifilm GFX 100 has three shooting speeds: Single shot, Low Speed Burst, and High Speed Burst. You can shoot in 16-bit color for single shot only. Otherwise, it drops to the still very respectable 14-bit.  

I’ve found Low Speed Burst to be the most useful. The 16-bit color available in single shot does make a small difference, but not enough for me to justify the longer processing time associated with it. In my own, very unscientific test, I found that, when shooting in 16-bit mode, it takes longer between shots for you to be ready to shoot again. Again, this is fine if you aren’t shooting a fast-moving subject or aren’t shooting a model who is giving you 28 looks per second who you want to keep up with. So, if I’m just shooting for fun without a model in tow (or shooting still life or landscape professionally), I may use single shot 16-bit mode, but otherwise, I stay in Low Speed Burst.

Why not High Speed Burst? Well, when you shift into High Speed Burst, the camera does shoot more frames per second. But, when it’s doing so, it automatically shifts the EVF into preview mode, so it shows you a picture of the last picture you took while it’s processing the previous one. So, unlike a traditional DSLR, for example, where you are seeing the scene consistently and are free to press the shutter at any time, with High Speed Burst on the GFX 100, when you press the shutter, you are forced to linger on a preview of the previous shot before a clean view of the scene is available again. So, the process of shooting a high-speed burst is not one fluid motion, but instead a choppy experience of seeing only fragments of the scene in front of you.

If you’re spraying and praying, this is fine. But, if you’re like me and trying to pick out specific moments where a runner’s knee hits an exact height in relation to the rest of their body, you’re going to find it very difficult to get off more than one intentional shot per take, because you quite literally won’t see the next few actions, either because High Speed Burst is forcing you to see previews or because of the blackout required to process the 102 MP files.  

This poses a big problem if you’re shooting someone running or jumping across the frame. If you take one shot of them on the way up, they will have already landed again by the time you’re able to get a clear viewfinder and start looking for the next perfect moment. This effectively limits you to one intentional frame per movement.

I don’t know that there’s any technical way to fix that. I think both this blackout and the slower autofocus are simply the tradeoff of being able to generate such detailed files. 102 MP takes longer to process than 45.7MP (of the Nikon). The GF lenses are just physically bigger than other lenses, like those on the X series cameras, so they can’t really autofocus any faster than they do. And mirrorless cameras from most manufacturers have blackout in their EVF, whereas it’s barely noticeable in most optical viewfinders. At least, it's not a problem I personally ever considered before shooting with mirrorless cameras in earnest (it's also not super noticeable in my X-T3).  

As a side note, yes, I know that the Sony’s promise blackout free shooting with the A9 line. But, as I understand it, it is only blackout free when using an electronic shutter versus a mechanical shutter. And since I am using strobes a good bit of the time, electronic shutters are not an option.  

But, back to talking about the GFX 100.

File Size

When discussing my experience shooting with the GFX 100 with one of my digitechs recently, he asked me a logical question: “Do the large files clog up the computer?” 

He wasn’t referring to archiving, which can be addressed simply by being more prudent with how many of your rejects you keep and how many you move to the trash bin. He was referring to tethering. 

About 90% of the time, I am shooting tethered. In other words, there’s a cord running from my camera directly to a computer and into Capture One so that my clients can see what I’m shooting in real-time. Being on the same page as your clients during (not after) a shoot is absolutely essential as a commercial photographer.

If you shoot tethered, then you know that depending on its speed, you can outrun your computer even with 24 MP files if you shoot too fast. This is usually not a problem. And when it is, it’s usually a signal to me that I need to slow down and have ceased to be “seeing the moment” and am instead just pushing the button and hoping for the best.

I answered my digitech’s question with a quick “no,” as I had, as of yet, not experienced any significant problems tethering. That includes both tethering to computers with lightning-quick processors as well as tethering to my own six-year-old MacBook that was cheap (by Apple standards) even when I bought it.

However, as I’ve owned the camera for longer, I have noticed a few situations where the file size can become an issue. Again, these issues are mostly only going to be a problem if you find yourself needing to shoot in rapid succession.

As I talked about, probably in too much depth, in the last section, in order to get the GFX 100 to keep up with fast-moving subjects, I have to cut a few corners against my will. Specifically, let's say I’m shooting a subject sprinting across the frame and I’m trying to capture the perfect moment. This is a fairly regular shot that I am asked to take. Because the continuous autofocus is unlikely to be able to keep up with the action, I’m probably going to be in manual focus. I’ll pre-focus on a specific area where I think the action is going to happen, then press the shutter when the subject enters that area.

Now, in order to cut down on the number of takes the model has to perform, I generally like to get off at least two or three frames in a single take, less due to productivity concerns and more because it’s important not to tire your model out with unnecessary takes. For instance, I’ll capture the height of three consecutive strides one after another and get three options per take, just as an example.

Because of the blackout/auto preview I mentioned earlier, I have little choice but to spray and pray if I want to get off any more than one shot in that scenario. This means, in practice, that often, I’ll wait to press the button until the first moment, but then just hold it down until the model clears frame. I absolutely hate shooting like this. But, for certain shots when using this camera, it can be the only way. And it does work. But, there’s always a “but”: shooting in High Speed Burst quickly fills up the buffer both in my laptop (and even in the camera on those times I am shooting untethered.) What this means in actual practice is that immediately following the first take, I have to make the model wait until the buffer clears before executing take two.

Getting the right moment out of a model is 99% human interaction and putting the model in the right headspace and only 1% what I’m doing with the camera. If I want a model to look “in the moment,” I have to keep them, well, in the moment. Constantly telling them to wait between takes can kill the momentum of the shoot and lead to stiffer-looking images. Human beings in general are far better when they are allowed to simply flow. Your model’s energy should never be dissipated for a technical reason. And while I appreciate the final incredibly tack sharp and detailed image the camera provides and even appreciate it slowing me down in other circumstances, these lost seconds in-between shots can really interfere with you getting the perfect moment out of another living, breathing human being. You’ll get “a” moment for sure. But having the freedom to capture that one special moment can sometimes be a challenge if you are forced to delay due to buffering.

Once again, I think this is the third time I’ve mentioned this: none of this is a problem if you don’t shoot fast-moving subjects or if you don’t shoot quickly. If you are setting up a highly art-directed portrait, for example, and you are planning to spend hours meticulously setting up a shot, lighting it to a tee, putting a model in the frame, and telling them not to move an inch, then you are not going to have any trouble with it at all.  

I used the GFX 100 to do a recent celebrity portrait shoot of an NFL player, and the shots turned out brilliantly. Well, brilliant relative to my skill set, not in terms of the history of the photographic art form. The somewhat slower method of shooting mandated by almost all medium format cameras really encouraged me to come up with distinct compositions, and the result was images that really challenged me creatively. In a good way.

I also used the camera for a natural light run-and-gun shoot with a model in a local industrial complex. We weren’t technically supposed to be shooting there so I had to move quickly. Not tethering, obviously, just the GFX 100 and a couple of primes. We did both portraits and some impromptu fitness images. We even ended up shooting into the night, using only street lights and whatever light was given off by the neon signs of closed stores to complete the shoot. I really wanted to push the boundaries of the camera and see how it would perform. And the series turned out well, even at higher ISOs.

So, despite being thrown into situations it is not optimized for, the GFX 100 can perform in areas where most other medium format cameras would come up well short.  But, is it the right camera for me? I’ll get to that in the final segment of my in-depth, warts and all, review of the last three months using the GFX 100 as my main professional camera.

Log in or register to post comments


Deleted Account's picture

This is ridiculous. How much extra revenue has it generated? Make a business case .

LA M's picture

I think he did...just not sure what it was.

I've got a GFX system myself but I'm not in the least bit ashamed to say that it's just for fun. No business case.

Deleted Account's picture

I've yet to see any economic justification whatsoever.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

You can see in another article from Christopher, it's an expectation from clients : they want a big resolution, and they are impressed by the big tool, that makes you look professionnal in the eyes of clients, which is completely stupid when you know a bit about photography, but that's how it works.
Weather it returns the investment is another question. I just gave the reason he settled.

Chris Jones's picture

Read part 1 he lists exactly why he bought it with multiple reasons.

Deleted Account's picture

I did read part 1 and I commented similarly.

Les Sucettes's picture

Really? If we were to go down that route why not make a business case for say a Sony 7 over a Fuji XT-3? Because there is factually none to be made.

Deleted Account's picture

EVERY single capital expenditure in business requires a a return on investment.

Why is it that photographers are so lacking in business fundamentals. See also that idot YouTuber who complained a court found against her because she had no contract.


Les Sucettes's picture

Omg really - how about quality and Branding then. It’s not a “business” case but it certainly can make sense for your business. I can give you plenty of reasons why to get a Medium Format camera over an APS-C or 35mm. Do they necessarily make “business” sense? Can I prove that I landed this Hotel shoot because of my Medium Format? I know I did but I cannot point to any reliable data

Deleted Account's picture

Yes, marketing as it pertains to obtaining new clients is part of the revenue/profit analysis.

So yes, "OMG really".

The thing where people try to rebut you and concurrently demonstrate their complete ineptitude is particularly painful.


Les Sucettes's picture

The author of this three part series made a comprehensive review of the capabilities of the camera and how it compares to a APS-C camera SO THAT you can make sense of whether or not there is a case for you to get it or not.

No one photography business is the same, as you would undoubtedly understand as the business guru you put yourself out to be. It isn’t the objective of this review nor would it be very useful to make one on a single camera. How about light, how about the studio. How many lenses will you need. How many will you need in each system? How about other equipment. How about the city you are based in. How about the clients. What do they expect. What is your value proposition? On which market are you in?

A camera is a singular tool in the complete mix of a business ... it has a cost. You can look it up. If your business profits from a medium format system then the cost is very low. If your business only warrants an APS-C then it isn’t worth it.

It’s that banal!

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

I wrote it higher, but it fits better here :
You can see in another article from Christopher, this kind of camera is an expectation from clients : they want a big resolution, and they are impressed by the big tool, that makes you look professionnal in the eyes of clients, which is completely stupid when you know a bit about photography, but that's how it works.
Weather it returns the investment is another question. I just gave the reason he settled.

Luke Kellett's picture

Ah Will, how nice to find you on another forum sprouting the same stuff over and over like a broken record.

It’s like you read business for dummies chapter one and just stopped when you hit the first thing that sounded smart ‘ROI.... ROI.... ROI...’

Deleted Account's picture

Given that I've been running a business for over a decade...

How about you take your wounded ego...

BWAHAHAHA, you created an account to respond to me. 1 comment! BWAHAHAHAHA You poor pathetic creature.

Luke Kellett's picture

Awwww Will I’m so pleased you responded thank you. You’ve made my day.

Remind me and the rest of this community Will, how much money do you make from photography?

Deleted Account's picture

1. You're so stupid that you believe that a photography business somehow doesn't run on business principles.

2. Your ad hominem is a red herring and therefore utterly invalid.

Luke Kellett's picture

Just so we’re clear, you are refusing to answer?

Another question for you.

What is the business you’ve been running for 10 years?

Secondly why on earth were you a student studying a bachelor of law at the university of New England between 2013 and 2015 if you were running a business during that time?

These are my businesses:


The latter employs 15 people full time in the creative industries as you are well aware. Do you think that qualifies me for an opinion on commerce and the creative industries or matters of ROI?

You are selling your opinion as fact, it is not. It’s a subjective opinion on a topic that has many facets, you're dogmatic in your approach with people, a bully and pass your self off as an expert which you are not.

Deleted Account's picture

Your desperation is manifest; you can't even troll properly.

Deleted Account's picture

Took me a while to remember where I'd stumbled across you; you were that wierdo who kept messaging me till I blocked you; and then you started messaging me on IG, so I blocked you there too. I guess the fact that I didn't leap at the opportunity to meet you upset you.

To be clear, I do not meet random men from the Internet.

Luke Kellett's picture

As you know Will we have mutual connections. We got into an identical discussion to this on another forum. I messaged you out of courtesy to invite you for a coffee to discuss in person you declined.

Will I’m going to continue to call you out on this if I continue to see it. It’s toxic behavior.

My offer still stands for a coffee on me. I’m in Melbourne often.

Be kind to people dude. Or if you’re going to troll, you’re fair game.

Deleted Account's picture

I still don't meet random men from the Internet.

But sure, just how much of a moron would you have to be to get into an exchange with someone and then meet them.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Will, how do you find a return on your time invested in this discussion ?
You are stubborn and you make a fool of yourself.
You tell "truth" but don't accept good arguments that don't go that way. You need to open your mind, there is not only one way to run a business, and beside, that gfx GIVES returns as I explained higher.
Plus, what if it pleases Christopher to have it ? Don't some people spend small fortunes on sport cars ?
Chill out and give it a break, it's a good review, either that gfx is useful or not.

Deleted Account's picture

I said show me the business case, not there is no business case, you barely literate flog.

Tetsuo Sabin's picture

Deleted User Are you ok buddy?

You insult people and seem very unpleasant. What are you? In junior high? Hahaha. Also, what is your hang up with this article? You sound like you are whining about something unrelated and just spamming this comment thread. It’s not a cost benefit analysis. You replied so much on this thread it really seems like you have an issue.

To the author, great and insightful article. It’s interesting to read your creative process and professional experience

Deleted Account's picture

If people want to immediately take it there I am more than happy to respond in kind. But apparently if you respond sharply to a bunch of children who are determined to make it personal then that's not OK.

Your feelings do not matter to me.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Ok asshole. Permit me to use that name, since you gave me one, and let's call a spade a spade... So.

Let me take you by the hand and show you what made our reviewer take that medium format :

"The main reason why you need 100 MP is not because it is going to make your images any better. Megapixel count does not equate to artistic merit. 100 MP is really mostly beneficial when it comes to printing your work So if you, like me, have a lot of clients who need to print their images large for in-store displays, product packaging, and so forth, then the added megapixels become a necessity. Similarly, if you are a fine art photographer and will be making large prints for galleries, 100 MP will make your life that much easier. If you are only posting on Instagram or online, however, you can still achieve awesome results for far less of an investment."

See it here : https://fstoppers.com/bts/shooting-12-models-24-hours-fujifilm-gfx-100-3...

Will you shut it up or do I need to go on ?

You need a business case, go ask him, don't cry here like a spoiled kid who didn't get the icecream with the good flavour.

Deleted Account's picture

Congratulations on confirming you have significant issues with basic comprehension.

The physical advantages and disadvantages are overwhelmingly clear; but apparently idiots need them stated again and again and again.

What is not immediately obvious is the business case for spending well over $10k US for a tool of trade.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Let's put it that way :

Congratulations on confirming you have significant issues with basic comprehension.

The physical advantages and disadvantages are overwhelmingly clear; but apparently idiots need them stated again and again and again.

What is immediately obvious is that the business case and the price of thic camera are not the f*ing subject of this article. Go in DM with those who bought it if you want to discuss that matter.

And fuck off

Deleted Account's picture

Did I hurt your feelings?

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

No, you just spent too much of my time telling a self sufficient narcissic what he wouldn't listen to anyway.
Go work on your 10 year old business, you're loosing money by staying here.

Deleted Account's picture

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to assert when you say I am a "self-sufficient narcissistic"; one assumes you are suggesting I suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. It is hardly surprising that your diagnosis is as poor as your comprehension.

Also, *losing*.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Excuse my english, it's only my 3rd language.
Being so certain of "facts" while everyone tells you to rethink, that's a big point into that disorder. For our good sake, please, go consult.
Now i'm out, you'd better do the same.

Deleted Account's picture

Again, at no stage did I assert there is no business case.

Your English third language status does not excuse your inability to comprehend.

Les Sucettes's picture

Perfectly reasonable if that tool of trade makes you a hell lot more money than the other tool of trade that doesn’t...

Jon The Baptist's picture

Will I agree 100%

**Every expense needs to have a use-case***, and photographers are the worst when it comes to business fundamentals. I can't tell you how many photogs with 10+ years in the game I know in my town who have catastrophically bad business habits. Most have never heard of a P&L.

Les Sucettes's picture

It’s a felicitous comment to an excellent article that never pretended to be a business case. If you don’t know what a P&L is then really you shouldn’t be thinking of the GFX100. And finally there is no SINGULAR business case to be made for or against a system. Every business is different. Every System is different. Very similar and successful businesses can come to completely different conclusions on the very same tool.

Here are advantages of a Medium Format compared to a 35 mm regardless of Brand

- You can get 5-7 stops back vs 2-3 (APSC slightly less but not much)
- You get more accurate / detailed colours
- You get more details
- You can shoot with less distortion
- More light for depth of field
- Soft consideration; you “need” less lenses (to qualify: you may not technically “need” more lenses in other systems either but you can be more tempted to buy more for additional fringe benefits; but in MF you basically get the lens that does the job as quality is “guaranteed“)

By itself this makes a 35mm system more versatile and technically it can be cheaper however the MF system provides better quality based on the above. But a MF/APS-C combination can reverse that logic quite a bit and add more versatility and bring the costs down to what a “complete” 35 mm system would bring.

Does it make sense: it depends on what you do... you be the judge

Les Sucettes's picture

Sounds incredibly potent if a Medium camera can keep up with those sorts of Sport related scenarios. I just wished the review was more intended for the actual purpose of the camera. I would never use it for video or for scenarios where speed is crucial unless you shoot very precisely.

This camera is made for portraits, landscapes, architecture, interiors, product, fashion (non sports)...

Rhonald Rose's picture

Excellent article and a really in-depth review on blackout & slower autofocus and things to do as workaround in the skills department.

I use the same technique (I’ll pre-focus on a specific area where I think the action is going to happen, then press the shutter when the subject enters that area.) for my GFX-50S, albeit not even for actions this fast. As I pursue (convincing myself to make the jump with no business case is the hard part) GFX-100, a leap from my current GFX-50S, your articles are preparing me to be more familiar with the system even before I get hold of one.

However, coming from GFX-50S, except for it's weight and size, everything else will be only upside.

Out of curiosity: Won't Sony A7IV give you the pixels you need, but also providing the autofocus speed and performance? Then why GFX-100, yes, you had mentioned about billboards. Just curious. Obviously, not all camera purchase needs to have a business case, some are just for the fun of shooting.

I am waiting for more. Happy shooting.

Les Sucettes's picture

I find the difference in quality between a APS-C and 35 mm to be fairly negligible but the difference between 35 mm and Medium Format to be greater. To me this makes the Fuji ecosystem. There are other advantages to a medium format- for example better rendition of colour and details and of course you can shoot wider without distortion ... in reverse an APS-C con shoot longer without the great baggage that comes with a 35 mm. For me the 35 mm is the jack of all trades but you get better fringe benefits from APS-C and Medium Format.

That said it is entirely possible to do all this with the Sony - an incredible system. You could argue there’s a cost advantage but bear in mind though, that a mix of APS-C and Medium Format doesn’t necessarily come in more expensive if you choose lenses wisely. Sony lenses are very expensive... and Fuji X lenses are very cheap in comparison

I prefer the flexibility that Fuji provides me over the idea of the “one camera that rules all”. First all I don’t think it’s true in reality. Secondly, when 50% of my work warrants travelling with lighter equipment, why lug around a heavy Sony System, and when I do need Quality, why bother with second best. OK Fuji isn’t THE best Medium Format, but the business case for me is exactly here: I cannot justify a Phase One with Schneider lenses... speak again when it does make sense

Erpillar Bendy's picture

This is the difference between a genuine, independent review (this one) and a pretend review put out by a Fujifilm ambassador. Here you get the warts and all, and learn about issues that might affect you.

Juan Garcia's picture

Good stuff. Nice article, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Michael Clark's picture

The 100-200mm f/5.6 and the 250mm f/4 lenses offer significantly faster and more accurate Continuous AF with the GFX 100 than the three primes you have. I have shot a fair bit of action with the GFX 100 including the Red Bull Rampage and all with decent results. It certainly isn’t as fast as. Nikon D850 but very capable nonetheless.