As I have alluded to in a burst of recent posts, I am planning to generate a small database of lenses for use on the Fujifilm GFX series. Here's my chance for an introduction to give my rationale and to lay the foundation of this endeavor. I'd like to break this down into three "Y's." Let's begin with a personal "why": I'm choosing to use Sigma lenses to obtain focal lengths and apertures not currently offered in the GF lens lineup. Fujifilm's lineup is sparse at best, and apertures wider than ƒ/2 aren't represented. It's not that I'm a bokeh whore; it's that I need more light gathering for astrophotography and Fujifilm's widest lens, a 23mm, has a maximum aperture of ƒ/4 and that's just not going to work without a star tracker due to the sensor's 51MP resolution. I'm hoping to print a few of these so what counts for "sharp" on the web doesn't work at 20" print sizes. Other benefits: 35mm lenses are much cheaper, especially used prices, and these lenses mostly have direct focusing units unlike the "fly by wire" systems used on Fujifilm lenses. The GFX system just isn't mature enough to have grown both a complete lens lineup or a diverse used lens market.
I'm obviously not a professional photographer. Now, some may take that to mean an enthusiast has no need for a "professional level" camera, but that is entirely untrue, even on a general level. What the GFX offers is resolution. 50.1 megapixels of it. What I offer my camera is a crippled body, unable to get the most from any camera body. I can not hike as far, climb as high or go as long as an average photographer. I also cannot drive due to the medications I need to operate from day to day. Because of that, the GFX's resolution returns to me an ability lost by my inability to drive: repeatability.
The biggest news was the purchase of a Fujifilm GFX 50S, GF 45mm ƒ/2.8 lens and TechArt autofocus EF-GFX lens adapter. It arrived just before Xmas and I was able to use it for parts of both latter shoots. I also gave it a couple of runs, one from Kerry Park that was foiled by fog, another from Rizal Bridge that wasn't. The increase in resolution is shocking. Shots taken from the bridge could be cropped down to 8mp and were still crystal clear. Also shocking: the size of the uncompressed RAW files at ~140MB each.
What may just look like wasting money, there’s an actual reason why I’ve bought into the Wine Country Camera filter holder system and round filters to replace the kits I had before: I’m planning to purchase a Fujifilm GFX-50S by year’s end.
The other day I received an opportunity usually reserved for working or aspiring professionals: The chance to have a guided shoot with a Fujifilm X Professional Photographer FOR FREE! Fujifilm Pro Photographer Kara Mercer hosted the event, bringing along a metric ton of lendable gear, but more importantly, a wealth of knowledge and an outgoing attitude you usually don't find between photographers in the pro photo world.
The question, "why don't the photos on my (insert model) camera show up in X RAW Studio?" has popped up far too frequently but wrong answers have been popping up even more. The X-T20's firmware was updated recently, bestowing upon it compatibility with X RAW Studio, leading to a surge in people downloading the firmware but not downloading the updated user manual linked directly below it. So now they seek people to give them the answer to their boggle in exchange for minimal effort expended, their keyboards lacking a button to activate any "search feature." The most popular response has been, "you must transfer the RAW files from your camera to a folder on your computer first." Wrong.
Beginning with a Fujifilm X-T20, a cold, wet November hike to photograph Twin Falls enlightened me to the benefits of a weather sealed camera. It was then durability surpassed convenience in priority and I bought my Graphite Silver Edition X-T2. 90 days later, I feel I’ve spent enough time with it to render a proper judgment, so here’s my own review of what I’ve experienced and ultimately learned.