The Fujifilm GFX100

A printmaker's dream.

Kauai, Na Pali coast

By Les Picker

I often get questions about what camera to use if you're serious about printing. After almost 50 years of shooting with Nikon equipment I switched to medium format, first with Hasselblad digital and now happily with the Fujifilm GFX cameras. I'd like to open up a conversation with you about the merits and drawbacks of medium format, specifically as it impacts images on paper.

But first, a qualifier. You can make terrific, high quality fine art prints shooting with any modern camera. I shot Nikon for most of my professional career, but there are other equally fine camera systems from Canon, Olympus, Leica, Pentax, Sony, and others. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

I have a triptych image on a wall of my office that I shot with a 12MP Nikon that is 5 feet x 9 feet. Of course it was aided by the fact I shot with Nikon's legendary 24mm tilt-shift lens so it was tack sharp from foreground to background.

So, if 12MP is fine for a 5 x 9 foot print, why would anyone want or need 100MP? The answer is all in the viewing distance and material used for the print. The print I refer to is on canvas. The more textured the surface the less fine detail is rendered. The farther away one views the print the less resolution of detail is required. A print like this doesn't really stand up under close inspection.

Several years ago I made the switch to medium format. I had shot large format film for a while, but I no longer wanted to lug that gear on long trips and have to deal with film that airport x-rays were dedicated to ruin.

The Strengths...

So why did I switch? MF allows for a more deliberative approach to photography, which I prefer. I no longer shoot sports or ultra-fast action events. I do shoot wildlife, but I find that five frames per second on my Fujifilm GFX 100 is fast enough for the type of intimate wildlife images I capture.

The GFX 100 produces stunning fine arts prints for several reasons. The reason most people cite is its larger sensor and more MPs. My GFX 100 files are 102 MP which, let's face it, can put a hurt on home computer systems. I like large prints, I also love massive amounts of detail and prints that stand up when closely inspected. I'll take all of the resolution I can get.

Resolution when measured in megapixels can be a little deceiving. If you want fine detail more is better, but going from 24MP to 50MP to 100MP is not the improvement one might initially think it is. Each of those doubling of total pixels is allowing you to make a 25% larger print (measured linearly) with the same detail all other factors being equal. but, in the end, I'll take it.

Beyond resolution, there are a lot of other factors that contribute to how a print looks. This is where the GFX100 shines. I won't pretend to know which factors contribute what quantitative amount to the end result, that kind of analysis isn't useful anyway. Color and tonal depth probably play a role, dynamic range plays a role, and obviously lens quality plays a role.

I believe the GFX100 was the first Fuji medium format sensor that had 16-bit RAW files instead of 12 or 14-bit RAW files like most other cameras (prior to this only far more expensive cameras had 16-bit RAW). It also seemed to improve instead of degrade in terms of dynamic range. I don't know if various lab tests confirm this but as a landscape photographer there are situations where I need to push the RAW files around quite a bit. GFX100 RAW files seem as flexible, maybe even more so, than my original GFX50S. Typically you'd expect it to be less given the increase in pixel density. The end result is a print that doesn't feel "digital".

A key driver in my complete switch to the Fujifilm medium format system a few years ago was the quality and the value of the lens system. I have to say that the GFX lenses continue to impress with the additional resolution of the GFX100. In fact I see with every photo shoot even more how good they really are.

The tonal range in my B&W prints is huge, so I can open the shadows to my liking without blowing the image apart. The bottom line is all of my larger prints look even better upon close inspection with the GFX100 across the board under all conditions. There doesn't seem to be any downside as far as print quality goes, only improvements.

... the Weaknesses...

Of course, using a MF camera has its disadvantages. The cameras are a bit heavier than today's full-frame pro cameras and can be bulkier. The exception is Hasselblad's line of X1D medium format cameras, which are lighter and more compact. The GFX100 is a much larger and heavier camera than the GFX50S.

MF lenses are also generally heavier than their DSLR or full frame counterparts. And you can't shoot at 12 or 20 (or more) frames per second.

Another disadvantage can rear its ugly head due to the physics of MF cameras. Achieving sharp focus takes practice, but it's sure worth it when you see the results. I, like many other GFX system users are waiting for tilt-shift lenses or some workable solution that doesn't cost as much as a new camera system would.

Of course a real roadblock to MF cameras for many people is price, with MF camera systems costing 20-40% more than a full frame camera system. A GFX 100 with 2-3 lenses will entail an investment starting at $15,000.

... and the Prints.

There's a lot of misinformation on the Internet. I'm not about to add to that. You can get great prints from virtually any camera system. Period. And 90% of that actually depends on factors other than your camera; the scene, the light, your printing experience, developing a color-managed workflow, choosing the right paper, and on and on.

At The Paper Arts Collective we have a combined 75+ years of printing experience, including from the very infancy of digital printing. So I believe we're able to judge prints from a base of deep experience. As you gain experience, you will be able to do the same.

What I find is that the prints from my GFX MF camera system have finer tonal gradations, less noise and more realistic and pleasing artistic appearance than the same print taken with a DSLR or full-frame camera. I'm saying that's in general and controlling for the factors I mentioned. You cannot fairly compare an image printed on a glossy versus a mat paper. Or one printed within a color-managed workflow versus one that is not. Or one done by an inexperienced printer without a consistent workflow and trained eye.

Finally, much of your printing will depend on your genre and artistic intent. For example, if you are doing a lot of compositing, layering in Photoshop, printing mostly 13x19" and under, or creating non-traditional artwork, then shooting in MF may not make sense.

But if you are shooting mostly landscapes, portraits, travel, dancers in difficult lighting, nudes, and macro - to name some genres - and you tend to print big, then I suggest you rent a MF camera and a few lenses, shoot and print. Nothing I write here will convince you like a real life field test.

If you have any GFX questions regarding real-world use, what lenses I use, etc, just ask.