Round One: GFX vs X-T2

7 years, 4 months ago 11
Posted in: Uncategorized


Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.33.29 PM

I’m at Bedford’s PhotoCon in Oklahoma City and I just got the chance to wring out the new GFX and shoot some comparison shots with the Fujifilm X-T2.  This is not an exhaustive test, but is quite revealing!  How so?  Follow along.


Let’s start with an overall scene shot with both cameras: (which at this size are identical)


Screen Shot 2017-03-16 at 5.16.07 PM


Both cameras were set at ISO 200, f11 and Auto White Balance, shot with a self timer off a tripod on a concrete floor.


First, I cropped out the bottle and orange and yellow car section from both cameras files.  You can guess which is which?!



GFX Full


At this point it is very hard to tell.  Top X-T2, bottom GFX.  Now let’s blow this file up to a 7 foot wide file from a cropped section to compare!!!





Now you can see the very fine detail at the bottom of the bottle start to be much better defined in the GFX file (top image), but remember this is as tiny portion of the original files, blown up to 7 feet wide!!!!!!!


Let’s try another:


GFX Sprocket


XT-2 Sprocket



The GFX file on top is actually less sharp on the wall (both f11) because the depth is greater in the smaller sensors at the same focal length equiv.  At full image size it is hard to discern a difference other than the depth.  The GFX is still crisper but not by a very large margin.



GFX full bike

XT-2 ful bike


The GFX file (top) has more bite and acutance, but not by a lot once again, at full file size!!





Again full files, close to the same, GFX on the bottom!



So some early conclusions:


  1.  The GFX has a ton of resolution and can be blown up to outer space and still have enormous detail, and the X-T2 holds it’s own until we start cropping or making very, very large prints on the order of feet by feet.  Can you see the difference with your nose against the print, yes you can, but standing back at a reasonable distance I suspect it would be harder, though the GFX would still have the edge!


2.  Is the GFX worth the difference in price?  Yes and no.  If you’re a pixel peeper of the tenth order, and demand the ultimate in resolution and acutance, a big Yes!  If you rarely make very large prints or reproduce in very high end slick publications, not as much.


3.  Would it be a great camera for landscape work?  Yes it would, definitely, the detail would be a big advantage, but then again what are you going to to do with those big juicy files?  Prints of enormous size you bet, it would be the ticket!   24X36 and 40X60 at reasonable distances it might be a closer call.


4.  Would I buy one?  Maybe, it would depend on what kind of work I was doing and then the cost is a factor for all of us.  I’m thinking about it and weighing the options.  Too soon to say, but I’m mighty impressed!!!


5.  Is it worth it?   YES, it is one of the finest medium format cameras I’ve ever shot, it is a dream to operate, very much like a big X-T2, menus are much the same, and it has some very helpful features.  The price is not low, but the quality and files are spectacular.


More after further research!




the pilgrim



One more:


Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 9.28.06 AM

Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 9.26.12 AM

Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 9.26.21 AM


Bet you can guess which is which here, pretty amazing!





O.K. just for grins guess what these were made with????






O.K. some kind of world we live in, these are 2 megabyte files from a iPhone 6+ !!!!!  Maybe he Millennials are on to something!?

11 Responses

  1. A comparison like this is a reminder that the need for high-resolution quality is not an absolute but dependent on the display. All else being equal, a 48MP image shot on a medium format camera then downsampled to 960px for display on a 2MP display isn’t going to be visually different than one shot at 24MP on an APS-C format camera.

    It is only after some severe pixel peeping does one notice a difference. Do “normal” human being look at images via magnifying glasses?

    The difference probably only matters if the photograph will be used on a large display (billboards, signage, product catalog).

    • admin says:

      Absolutely true, and my comments were from viewing the sample images here on a high res screen and checked at several different magnification rates. Thanks for making that point!

  2. Jim in Bloomington says:

    Do you run into the same technique issues shooting the GFX as with a Nikon D810 at 36 megapixels, for example? Is the GFX aa medium format that can be used at all like an X-T2? Fascinating test. Thank you.

    • admin says:

      Yes, high resolution is high resolution and all the factors of careful, deliberate technique certainly apply. The size of the sensor helps, but 50 megapixels is still 50 mega pixels. These are not cameras that will tolerate sloppy technique, but then we shouldn’t be sloppy at any sensor size of mega-pixels!

  3. Rodney McKnight says:

    Thanks Bill. I think we all are thinking about what it might be like to own this camera….
    even if it may or may not be “logical” for what we do….not sure all of my purchases have always
    been logical….

  4. Jorge says:

    Or I can just stand next to the guy shooting his GFX and with my X-T2 pump out a 3 to 5 shot vertical pano type image and get the same or better rez if I were so inclined.


  5. Adventsam says:

    I did some comparisons of the dpreview samples vs the xpro2 converted to dng in irident x-transformer and upscaled in blow-up 3. The GFX is slightly better, obviously, but probably because the 4:3 ratio places it closer in the studio for framing and gives a perceived higher resolution in my opinion. Xpro2 sample correctly scaled to 54 mp (6mp width) the difference is not that huge! However, that was a studio! Would you be able to make 1 or 2 of your comparisons available, raw, in drop box or other so I can run a similar process to test? I would post the results on dpr with credits to you and your site!

  6. […] Bill Fortney – Fujifilm GFX 50S vs Fujifilm X-T2 […]

  7. I think it’s a solid observation that points out both the good and problematic aspects of the new camera. Not uncommon for new cameras — especially one at this level — to have limitations and “bugs” as they evolve. I would not commit that kind of money for marginally better results without a damn good reason.

  8. […] talked about several areas of the industry. He actually worked for Nikon. Now a Fuji X-T2 shooter. Was in Joe McNally’s wedding. Was Joe McNally’s tech […]