Fujifilm GFX 50S camera shipment date + new promo videos

After leaking the pricing of the Fuji GFX 50S medium format digital camera and GF lenses, FujiAddict reported today that the GFX pre-orders will start on January 19th and shipment should start after February 23rd. The upcoming Fuji X100F and X-T20 cameras are also rumored to be announced in the same time frame for the CP+ show.

Update: check also this post about the Fujifilm GFX 50S AF points.

Today Fuji also released seven new GFX promo videos (see the previous set of promo videos here):

If you are interested in the Fuji GFX 50S medium format digital camera, check also the new Fuji GFX group and Fuji GFX page on Facebook.

Via Fujiaddict

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • abortabort

    These videos really highlight that Fujifilm are still making the same mistakes in mirrorless lens design. That’s a real shame.

    • Narretz

      Which are …?

      • abortabort


        • Jeffry De Meyer

          Just shows they aren’t planning on going for the larger sensor format with this set of lenses.

          there is noting wrong with the mount for what it is intended to do, unlike that other mount.

          • Les

            The fact that both Hasselblad and Fuji have built new mirrorless camera systems around this sensor size is a sure sign that Sony will release an updated sensor. I expect the replacement to have PDAF and better video specs, and probably a few more megapixels.

            It also means that the “full 645” sensor size used in 100 MP backs will remain a low-volume niche product.

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            Not really the market for on sensor pdaf.
            Faster readout, bsi

          • abortabort

            I’m talking about lenses, not the mount.

            Not sure what ‘that other mount’ means?

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            Yes I see from your other reply you are talking about the focus motors.
            Never thought about that really, don’t know that many people who would use a Fuji camera for anything that would require blazing fast focus acquisition.
            And Fuji just sucked for video until the last batch so it really didn’t matter that they weren’t ultra silent.

            I suppose by IF you mean internal focusing, I get why that is important when doing macro and video.
            For regular stills, not so much.

            That other mount is Sony e mount with a full frame cmos sitting behind it.

          • abortabort

            Sounds like making a bunch of excuses for bad product planning and design. Yes, actually, people make all sorts of claims about how fast the Fuji X system is, but most of the lenses (including many I own) have serious design compromises, in order to sound impressive (and be impressive enough on test charts).

            It’s less about focus motors, more about optical design. IF is far more important than you think, I know being a DSLR person you probably don’t know nor care. But for a CDAF system that is a terrible, terrible idea.

            As for that other mount, what is supposedly wrong with it?

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            the corners of the sensors are behind the lens mount and the light needs to be bent to far to reach them over the short distance or you get shading

            From what I have read and seen, fuji lenses are a nice combination of sharp and colorful at a reasonable price.
            I don’t see the point of making them more complex for the sake of complexity.
            If the system doesn’t give you what you need find something that does.
            People seem to be enthused about the a6500 and the m5 seems to be quite the capable device too;

          • abortabort

            Well keep believing that, I can’t be bothered. My X-T2 is fine, lenses are a bit of a mess with this system, but they’ll do.

          • I’m hardly a Fuji fanboy but their lenses are pretty good, if plastic-feeling and seriously disorganised from a haptic point of view.

          • abortabort

            Optically they are quite good, but they have made serious compromises in modern terms of usability to achieve good optical quality and affordability. Unfortunately this has meant their lenses have been seriously lacking in terms of a mirrorless system until the very latest bodies, which rely heavily on much improved PDAF, 4 or so years after the fact and even then their AF is still pretty woeful compared to most other mirrorless systems.

            GFX is following exactly the same pattern. Their lenses are fast and ‘ok not amazing’ when you follow more modern design practices needed for mirrorless designs, where the lenses are heavily corrected digitally and are pretty far from being amazing optically. Then they have their optically excellent (I’m sure) lenses that will perform poorly until sensor and processing technology catches up, but still performs behind the curve.

            Everyone lambasts Sony for lacking ‘Fuji like lens lineup’, but so few Fuji lenses meet some of the basic standards Sony (and other mirrorless makers) have set.

            My current Fuji setup isn’t perfect, but it’s a big improvement over my older Fuji setups. But I can see the GFX being just like the early X system, raved about by paid spokespeople, absolutely awful in real world use.

          • I guess I don’t see what you’re talking about. Even the 18-55 focuses really fast on new bodies, certainly up there with some of the best mirrorless cameras out there.

            I don’t think optical performance is anything to write about in any camp. Every maker has great lenses. And, every maker has crap lenses.

          • abortabort

            The 18-55mm is an IF and LM lens. How many lenses in the GFX lineup are both? ONLY the zoom. How many are optically corrected? All but the zoom.

          • Optical correction appears to be a thing of the past. Even Leica rely on computer correction in post. I share your chagrin for this change.

          • abortabort

            These lenses are optically corrected (apparently, at least according to rumour sites), but the zoom is likely the only lens to have decent AF but is digitally corrected.

            The other thing that was especially dreadful is focus by wire, especially on a system where the AF is iffy at best. Fuji struggled to AF their 35mm f1.4 (for example) with CDAF only, how do you think similarly designed 110mm f2 will go on the same kind of setup? I’m not talking ‘fast’ here, I’m talking ‘working and reasonably reliable’, let’s see.

            But it’s a very interesting camera to use with manual lenses.

        • Spy Black

          Yeah, let’s hear it. You know.

          • abortabort

            That same things that are wrong with the majority of their lenses, primes especially, for their X system. Not IF. Not LM. They are slow, they were dog slow for years and then they are slightly better after years and years of body improvements, but still far from fast. Now they are going backwards with larger lenses on a CDAF only system with the same poor designs.

            Everyone raves about Fujis lens designs, but that’s just poor. They stick to old fashioned designs so they can put impressive numbers on them for a low cost.

          • 1741

            Everyone knows that it’s not going to be the fastest at focusing as it’s down to it’s sensor tech, the mk 2 or 3 will be much better, also most mf users have static subjects so ultimate focus speed isn’t an issue

          • abortabort

            Well if they want to continue the tradition of MF being incredibly slow, sure, why not?

          • Zos Xavius

            So I read a lot of your comments and I don’t understand why IF is so important for mirrorless cameras. Is there some kind of extra precision gained? Can the focusing element be made to move faster? IF is nice, especially with zooms, but aren’t there often downsides too? Focus breathing is often seemingly exaggerated by internal focus designs. The lenses tend to be longer too which is not ideal when a small size is one of your goals. Something Sony seems to have failed miserably in.

          • abortabort

            Size is definitely a down side, not sure Sony have ‘failed’ at it at all, but that is definitely the design decision they’ve made. Size isn’t the all encompassing all important thing for all mirrorless like many seemingly want to believe. But yes, size is generally bigger. But I digress.

            On the other hand IF lenses focus using smaller groups and elements internally. This helps with PDAF systems too, just look at say Sigma 85mm HSM vs Canon 85L, or the newer (but larger) ~100mm macros with IF. Faster but larger.

            But on mirrorless, especially with basic or no PDAF, the lens doesn’t just have to move those elements to the correct position, it has to flog them back and forth until it figures out optimum contrast in the designated area. Unit focussing and external focussing type lenses with no floating elements and the like are simply cr4p for this.

            In the early days of mirrorless some brands tried this kind of lens as cheap-ish ways of making fast, compact primes: lenses like Panasonic 20mm f1.7, Samsung 30mm f2, Canon 22mm f2, but they quickly learned that these lenses are extremely slow on the mirrorless bodies. Fuji were / are especially bad for it, because they didn’t just make some light little pancakes, they designed a good chunk of their entire lens lineup around this, mostly their primes (which is what they’re ‘known’ for, having a good selection of fast primes). While other companies wouldn’t just release lenses that would cause a bad user experience just to get a product out, Fuji were more than happy to do this (if you owned an early X series camera you know what I mean).

            And if you think I’m wrong, consider this:

            The Fujifilm 35mm f2 WR is their first prime lens that truly follows what other mirrorless manufacturers have been doing for years, its small, ‘fast enough’ aperture, relatively affordable and most importantly has a good user experience by having fast and silent AF. Optically it’s good enough, far from perfect and corrected in camera, but fine for most users. It is their most popular lens AFAIK. The 23mm follows the same. After all the years of bashing other brands like Sony for having ‘only slower f1.8’ lenses, these lenses are their most popular. I wonder why? Because having impressive numbers on the front doesn’t always trump user experience, just ask Apple.

      • johnny

        It must be lens size. There is still no solution for edge problem on symmetrical optical design. Leica even redesigned their lenses to accommodate digital sensors.

  • Phase One is really stupid if they don’t support the GFX with Capture One just because it’s entering the Medium Format domain, that’s silly.

    • sperdynamite

      Phase One IS really stupid. You can end it there. They’re facing an ever shrinking high-end market and not introducing anything that actual photographers can afford without being part of an institution or giant studio. They make nice stuff, but they should have introduced an X1D or similar much faster, or made the IQ250 back $8 grand as soon as the IQ3100 came out.

  • leicasucc

    in first pictures – those sensor proportions are out of proportions ;)… seriously A-SPC vs FF – there is much bigger difference then this “MediumFormat” vs FF

    • silmasan

      Exactly, as is shown there. Are you reading it correctly? The “full frame”/35mm is in white, DX is in yellow. This “crop MF” is in green, and XF (which is almost “full frame” 645, and therefore more “proper MF”) is the blue outline.

    • abortabort

      No it isn’t. There is a bigger ‘gap’ between APS-C and 135 than there is between pretty much most formats. The gap is around half that between 135 and ‘cropped’ 645, so only around 2/3 stops, vs 4/3 stops.

    • Zos Xavius

      The proportions seem correct. Edit: I tried uploading an image but it would not let me. strange.


  • Lubos

    I have to say that it is very impressive 🙂

    • I agree, Fuji did a good job based on what we’ve seen so far.

      • abortabort

        It’s easy to be impressed by marketing material where nobody in the real world has really had any time with this gear. Fuji seem to be very, very good at the hype machine.

      • Ugly as sin, but impressive. Had Hasselblad’s camera had a focal plane shutter, Fuji’s edge for general photography would be much less pronounced.

  • sickheadache

    I too are impressed. I am going to test drive it, when released. Say NR, do you think Canon(Not Cannon) or Nikon might be thinking about Medium Format. Seems Nikon would …since Sony supplies the Sensors.

    • I doubt that. What Nikon can do is release a pro Nikon D5x camera with a high resolution sensor (similar to what they did with the D3x a few years back).

  • Back to top