Fujifilm GFX 100s vs XT5

[@bernios3446]

You ask what camera out of the two we prefer, but you actually compare 2 lenses. Most people will notice the difference in bokeh, which has little to do with the camera and sensor quality. 2 different focal lenghts and apertures combined with 2 different sensor sizes (Gfx is 4 x larger than X-T5) produce a very different look. If you used the GF63/2,8 on the Gfx, it would be much (!) more even comparision.

[@M3D1K]

My wife walked into the room as you’re saying “it’s so tight”. Then I gotta explain how it’s not like that. 2 min later she walks back in and you say “oh god it’s so tight”… bruh you’re killing me 😅😅😅

[@jbivphotography]

😂😂😂

[@JCANPetros]

Lol it was like he was do8ng it on purpose 😅

[@induction7895]

A real problem with long lenses.

[@stevengower7396]

Looking at these online, the differences are tiny. I shoot with the XT5 and Gfx50S, in use, the differences are a little more significant. The Gfx color rendering and transitions in light, DOF, and color are a bit better. And the dynamic range in post is better. But I am still blown away at how close the Xt5 gets. I see the XT5 as a camera I can carry anywhere, long hikes, multi-day backpacking, or just down the street. The Gfx is for when I want the best possible picture and I'm willing to lug the extra weight to get that shot. I love the Fuji look regardless of sensor, they are more similar than different.

[@nickraypost]

Man that GFX skin tone reproduction/transitions really are exceptional and glass quality is ultra top shelf. Foregrounds, subject, background are all something special... Really impressed with the XT5, it really outperformed what I expected, and held its own for sure. I do see a big difference, but we are talking completely different league cameras. Is the 5% better image quality worth the $$$? Probably not, unless you're making 6 figures or close as a commercial or wedding shooter. Photographer's talent and experience makes the bigger difference, I think. I'd say both are crushing competitors in their own categories, can't loose with either. Awesome vids man, love this content and your channel overall!!

[@Yupthereitism]

Sony lenses are sharper than gfx. Canon as well. They are also faster so you get the same or better depth of field. Fuji’s magic is in their x line, the gfx is not worth it at all

[@claudianreyn4529]

I don't make 6 figures yet, but I started directly with the GFX, because it represents a consistent and long term investment. The lenses were more expensive than the body all together anyways, for me the system is built around the lenses and the GF lenses are incredible. There are multiple advantages and I think I have a better chance to grow with this system.

[@Yupthereitism]

@@claudianreyn4529 you’ll grow to realize that the gfx system is much less efficient than a Sony or canon system. This is because the Sony/canon glass is sharper, faster, lighter, and more affordable than the gfx glass. I love Fuji stuff but you’re really sinking a lot of money into a depreciating asset. Doesn’t make sense financially or professionally

[@nationalzero269]

@@Yupthereitism That is not true at all.

[@AllCarsUnited]

It actually is​@@nationalzero269

[@sambalsamurai9672]

3:55 Left her glasses look dull. Right her glasses are hypnotising, makes me blush. 3:55 Left pale facial skin looks sick. Right looks healthy and even visionary. 3:55 Left white highlights are blown out. Right white highlights are smooth. 3:55 Left her blouse looks dull like a doll. Right true rich violet palette complements her blouse. 3:55 Left orange bars are noisy and muddy. Right orange bars melt and blend gently away. To name a few...

[@pennyfan13]

GFX has better tonality and, logically, a lot better in low light. But are the images 2~3 times better matching their price? I don't think so. It's a great comparison, confirming my decision to stay in the Fujifilm X system.

[@claudianreyn4529]

Yes actually it worth the price, if you are using the system for a proper context. There are multiple advantages, so that number you say, 5%, is very subjective. To me is way more than that.

[@RedShiftedDollar]

4x the price for 4x the sensor size seems like an amazing deal. When you buy a camera, what are you buying? A surface area of pixels. So just as a 10TB drive that costs 2x the price of a 5TB drive is a fair price, the same concept applies here. Imagine a Fuji camera with a sensor half the size of the xt-5. How much would you expect it to cost? Half the price seems reasonable.

[@pennyfan13]

@@RedShiftedDollar no, It is not a simple math but considered the added stress to storage, and much pricier and less choice lenses, I don't think it is justifiable. And there's one major deal break, the flash sync speed for the GFX is not there yet.

[@RedShiftedDollar]

@ In many cases flash exposure time is set by flash pulse duration so the slow sync speed isn’t a problem. And it supports HSS so you can still use flash way beyond the 1/125 shutter limit. But yeah you will need more flash power and maybe an ND filter in some cases. That’s why Hasselblad went with the leaf shutter. But the benefit of a traditional shutter is that you can fit retro lenses.

[@pennyfan13]

@@RedShiftedDollar it will be depends on the application, in studio flash work yeah no big deal, but outdoor or mixing constant light and flash would be. If GFX system has built in ND filter then half of the problem is solved even with traditional shutter.

[@mrheatmiser2]

I'm not as seasoned as some folks here but I don't see much difference at all. If the photos were shown side by side with no indication of different cameras it would be extremely hard to tell.

[@dimitarkotsev9234]

Thumbs up for the idea, but the comparison really should have been GF 63 vs XF 33 / GF 80 vs XF 50 or GF 110 vs XF 56. Even so - in bright daylight and lower ISO + youtube compression people are not likely to see much, if any, difference in the results in equal focal lengths. This could prove very discouriging to current and potential GFX users. Where GFX really shines is dynamic range and higher ISO performance. Therefore landscapes and nighttime portraits is where people will actually notice the difference between the two systems (within similar youtube comparisons).

[@bobby350z]

Agree but I will say looking a the model face even with GFX50s at ISO100, I just say wow. Haven't tried XT-5 but did a lot of tests with A7rIV. Now shoot with GFX100s.

[@hawthornecreativemedia]

Loved this video and am definitely happy with my choice to stick with the XT5’s. For weddings I use the 56 for a lot of my shots and tbh you’d be hard pressed to even find the difference between the 56 on the XT5 and the 85mm on the Sony A74.

[@LJLLC]

I appreciate this comment so much as someone actively switching from Sony Full Frame to an XT5 setup and the 56 1.2 R WR being a make it or break it lens for my work.

[@Josian]

Love this. Interesting how the shots are more blurry and brighter on GFX overall very similar.

[@jbivphotography]

I was thinking about using the 50 f1.0 on the X-T5 which would have maybe made the DOF closer to equal on the cameras. I might go back and do that again.

[@thomaskatter6836]

My guess would be the dof/bokeh is much different on the gfx. On my medium format film camera, f3.8 is really like f1.2 on a 35mm

[@okyeabuddyguy]

@@thomaskatter6836 The digital medium format sensor is not nearly the same size as film medium format. Smallest film medium format is 60x45 vs digital which is 44x33. So in the case of this video, that GFX lens is about a 63mm F1.4 in full frame terms and the XT5 is about 50mm F2.1. So the GFX has about a 1.5 stop advantage considering the focal length difference and DoF difference. The tradeoff of course is size and handling. The XT5 is much, much easier to handle. Voigtlander has a manual focus 35 F0.9 lens for Fuji X mount which will get you very close to the GFX. There is also of course the 50mm F1.0 which would also be very close.

[@chrisburgess9919]

I thought there was surprisingly little difference in image quality, the X-T5 seems to be a compact beast of a camera.

[@mrheatmiser2]

I thought the exact same thing.

[@stevelink3]

Greetings! Interesting comparison, however, it's extremely difficult if not impossible, to tell a difference in image quality between 2 small, compressed images in a KZbin video on a display. Where the GFX (and Any MF system) comes into its own, is when making very large prints. In that case, I think that the GFX images would be orders of magnitude better, sharper, cleaner, with more detail, than an APS-C (or FF) system print.

[@JLMedialtd]

Thanks for doing that video John, would definitely prefer to see 50 f1.0 vs 80 1.7 as I would deem those comparable in terms of more portrait style lenses. But yeah the 100s looks gorgeous and it’s making me want one. I have two XH2s bodies and loads of glass (and I agree, the 33 1.4 is stunning, as is the 23 1.4) 50mm F1.0 I am finding really slow, playback after shooting is so laggy (not sure if this is a character or a fault but it takes around a second or so before the picture plays back after shooting with the 50 1.0

[@ChrnafApril]

I have a gfx100s. Most people here the comments are going to critique the lens disparity. I think you did a good job of cropping and stopping down the GFX to keep the DOF about the same, but you just can't help that the compression of the longer GFX lens is going to pull the background closer... So any experienced shooter can tell which one is the GFX in about. 5 seconds by determining which has a closer background. So the difference is not in the background blur or closeness, but in the color separation and gradual color transition aka "tonality" which is why people point out that it matters in prints. For Internet use, if just get a xt5.

[@Yupthereitism]

Even for print use, just get an xt5

[@isherpa]

GFX has that soft film characteristic, the XT5 is clean and warm. Both great!

[@ThomazMartinez]

Can you compare view finders?

[@АндрейШуваев-я2р]

Cool! But it would be more interesting to see a comparison with 56 / 1.2 instead of 33 / 1.4 on xt5 😊

[@jbivphotography]

Yeah. I was originally debating using the 50 f1 since it would have given a more similar focal length but I decided not to. I might go back and do this again.

[@catbread2585]

@@jbivphotography Yeah my first thought seeing the depth of field of the gfx lenses was that a 50mm f1 would be closer than the 33mm

[@BTEguitardude]

Little off video topic. I know he was shooting X-T3 for a while. That body doesn't have Ibis, and neither do the primes. So can you get away with not having Ibis on anything? Is it not that big deal? Thoughts?

[@jbivphotography]

In my opinion IBIS for stills isn’t THAT important. mainly because if your subject mainly involves people or moving objects you’re still going to get motion blur with your shutter low. IBIS works best for still life subjects where you have to handhold or video.

[@beepneldo]

Would be interesting to see how the gfx stacks up against the 50mm f1.0 lens since they match better in terms of field of view and depth of field. The softer background in the gfx images is creating a bit of bias

[@rikohoveka3864]

The XT5 looks great but the GFX has a smoothing transition from light to shadow and nicer fall-off. There is also a beautiful softness to the skins tones on the GFX images and the images are cleaner. I am impressed with the XT5, the difference isn't as big as I thought it would be. The trade off for the size and weight advantage is worth it.

[@v_stands_for_value124]

GFX is better but not 5000$ better, I'd buy it tomorrow but I'm broke lol

[@kevinunger]

I agree. I've used the GFX 50S2 a handful of times, and I own the XT5. Speed is also a big factor. The XT5 focus's fairly fast while the GFX series is super slow. I am pleasantly surprised at how good the XT5 is though.

[@Eyeofkamau]

@@kevinungerthe GFX line desperately needs a stacked sensor body if fuji actually wants to compete with the advantages of FF (balance of IQ & Speed)

[@kevinunger]

@@Eyeofkamau Totally

[@jmackultra]

"OMG it's so tight" 😅😅😂😈 yeah I need to grow up. I won't though.

[@jbivphotography]

😂😂😂😂

[@BIMLounge]

Thanks for the comparison. Did you have grain on the XT5 at all? I like both for different reasons, but I can tell the GFX shots were cleaner.

[@alexincorduroy8281]

I wish he captioned the pictures when he did the side by side comparison. I couldn’t tell which was which

[@jbivphotography]

I’m pretty sure I did…..isn’t it at the bottom of the images?

[@mankimank1983]

The test would be more interesting if you set the aperture in such a way as to achieve similar depth of focus.

[@jbivphotography]

I agree the differences in the photos is pretty drastic. I think I’m going to do this test again.

[@peterdanyliw9506]

When you work on actual files, the micro-contrast & detail seen on skin is absolutely beautiful on the GFX 100s. Also, as a vertical rectangle image I find the aspect ratio of GFX more comfortable to look at.

[@brianw6645]

Thanks for this video. Probably too much work for what it is worth, but it would have been interesting to see the diff vs. 26mp Fujifilm camera as well. I imagine the difference is imperceptible. On my screen in KZbin, I really can't see much of a difference between Medium format and APS-C anyway.

[@komali2]

the difference probably gonna be less from resolution and more dynamic range or crop factor. This was ideal shooting conditions, would be interesting to see both shooting in the rain, at night, etc.

[@jb-el6xs]

Is the XT5 as sharp as the GFX?

[@pedropulido4570]

i can't tell a difference in the sharpness department. But depth of field, it's just 2 different worlds. That said, does the GFX really make that much of a difference? Maybe for the photographer. I honestly don't think many clients would notice much difference if they're not looking at subject separation, bokeh, DOF, etc.

[@jbivphotography]

It would really depend on the type of client you're working with but for the most part it's really only making a difference for the photographer.

[@oliverfox838]

Have you labelled all of the pictures correctly? For example, at 4:35 I think you have them the wrong way round based on what has been compared before in the video. Anyhow, all this video has done is confirm that I made the right choice going with the XT5. You can see the difference in the images, but I don’t think it’s a qualitative thing, more a matter of personal taste or choice.

[@ChrnafApril]

He's got them right. Look how much closer the background is on the left because of the 80mm compression. It pulled that bg right up close. 63mm FF vs the XT5 with 50mm FF. EQUIV.

[@donharrington576]

Very interesting thank you. You did all the hard work, what are your thoughts?

[@juitso]

How about XT5 vs XE4 or XT30?

[@law32O8]

Love watching this type of content

[@aucourant9998]

The XT5 did really great. I was swapping back and forth between both cameras when it came to liking different shots. I often preferred the skin tones on the XT5 but overall I liked more of the 100s shots; but it was close.

[@kenuwhoknew]

I always enjoy these portrait shoot videos you occasionally do. I just enjoy seeing the images and watching you shoot, I'm not even a fuji shooter. I even forgot you were shooting jpegs until like halfway through the vid lol some nice photos, and model. Do you still find models via instagram? Idk if I'm just trash at searching but I always find almost no models in my area searching through instagram

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks! I do mainly still find them through Instagram. I be having the hardest time. 😅😅

[@trentschlamp]

I would love to see an edit comparison now of the raw files you captured! Obviously those of us who haven't shot medium format think its a million times better. But I shoot on the XT5 and I'm super curious. Also, how often do you bang your cameras around with that harness? Like on stuff or on the ground when you're kneeling, is it a problem or not so much?

[@dougkoski]

Think to match the 80mm @ f/2.8, you'd want to use a 42mm lens @ f/1.4 on the X-T5. Could also swap to roughly a 60mm lens @ f/2.8 on the GFX lens. Calculating something like a 1.899 crop factor from the Fuji medium format to APSC.

[@permutationlab]

Aside from the general awesomeness of the GFX, man that 33 1.4 has some insane micro contrast ! It looks so natural.

[@MrGohunter]

The GFX is fine when you can take your time, but is awful for fast environments like weddings, where you need to capture "moments" as they occur. Each has there own niche. The GFX is like shooting a wedding with film, which I do in line with Fuji digital. Film for planned moments and digital for on the spur of the moment images. For most of these images, I prefer the 33 f1.4 as the 80 f1.7 has in most cases too shallow a depth of field for my liking.

[@claudianreyn4529]

Not true, it's more about the skills. I even shoot with the 80mm events and concerts. But the 45-100mm zoom is really fast, more than enough for a wedding.

[@MrGohunter]

@@claudianreyn4529 Sorry. I don’t agree. I tried one in the shop. That was enough for me to know that it wasn’t for my style of documentary wedding photography. You may have a different approach to wedding photography than I do.

[@bobby350z]

Agree on the much slower AF part, but on the DoF, why can't you stop down 80mm f1.7? if ss gets lower, bump the ISO.

[@MrGohunter]

@@bobby350z As I said in my comment. Wide open, the depth of field is too shallow. No one likes to see a portrait where the eyes are on focus, but the nose isn't, unless you're doing that just for effect.

[@bobby350z]

@@MrGohunter - So shoot at f2.8, f4. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Personally outdoor full length shots I shoot at f2 and I haven't had any issues with nose, eyes with 80mm or the 110mm. The 33mm f1.4 is like f2.8 on the GFX (DOF wise).

[@christophgordon6408]

Who is your model?

[@lachcim104]

Both are great!

[@chaser5515]

the larger sensor had much better background blur. thank you for this video.

[@nletarte]

Great comparison! There's definitely a difference but dang, that XT5 takes some great pics and probably no one would notice if they weren't side by side. I'm curious, what's your camera man's setup? I'm starting a new video gig with a school district and they told me to make a list of what I need.

[@borneoboii5776]

the compression photos look better to my eye. maybe cuz less distracting. but yeah, beauty in the eye of the beholder. love fuji film simulations. thinking of switching over from my a7iv

[@rayawilliams3370]

Omg… the GFX is chef’s kiss!!!! 🤌🏿✨

[@Lysasome]

I wish they were the same lenses to compare the two cameras.

[@jbivphotography]

That's impossible because each camera doesn't take the same type of lenses. It would be cool however.

[@OmarFadul]

The GFX is so, so, so much much more 3D like! It has much better transitions, and highlights look much more under control. It's not a big deal. Bigger sensor, better reproduction.

[@Yupthereitism]

Nah, they look virtually identical. It’s in your head

[@OmarFadul]

@@Yupthereitism You are one of those, who is unable to see any difference in anything, right? There are other people like you around. No problem!

[@Yupthereitism]

@@OmarFadul I've owned both systems, they look the same, there is no difference. It's all marketing and you've fallen for it. Unfortunately, there are more people like you around then there are people like me lol

[@POVwithRC]

@@Yupthereitism Bro, shut up and let people enjoy things. Yikes.

[@bernios3446]

"so much much more 3D like" - LOL, that's until you make a double blind test - same 4:3 ratio, comparable aperture, and you will see your 3D difference flow out of the window 🙂

[@miketittel69]

the 100 and that 80mm is magic. i’d argue worth it for that and that only if your gig was portraits.

[@davidknight6981]

Very nice. I like this type of content. Oh, and the model is a very pretty woman.

[@Pixelpeeps-69]

Dang video 👍 nothing comes close to the gfx100s with the best portrait lens on earth the gf80mm 💪🏻 the gfx50r has an even better cinematic look to images with that 51mp sensor than the more digital look of the images you get with a gfx100s !!

[@jbivphotography]

That 80 1.7 is life changing

[@claudianreyn4529]

The 80mm f1.7 is my favorite lens. I would like to purchase the 110mm f2 in the future. Also the 55mm f.17 will be insane.

[@Youcantleavethisempty01]

Why, my guy, would you test JPEG v JPEG? It's much more interesting to see how the RAW files compare.

[@JLMedialtd]

In hindsight maybe a 63 vs 33 would be fair or like I say, 80 vs 50

[@jbivphotography]

Yeah I really should have done 80 vs 50. I think that would have been closer to apples and apples

[@JLMedialtd]

@@jbivphotography no harm in making another if you get time haha

[@rdtstudios]

Gfx is better in the depth of field but the xt5 has better color and it’s sharper, which I didn’t expect

[@jbivphotography]

I think it's the lenses. The GFX lenses have a medium format film-esque softness to them I've noticed. The X-T series have always been tack sharp because of the great lenses.

[@rdtstudios]

make sense thanks for the info@@jbivphotography

[@kylejamesstevens5845]

Much appreciated as always, 🙏

[@myhandlewastaken]

I think these types of comparisons should be done using manual focus.

[@MB-ku5en]

i think they are both very nice.

[@parmanduke]

GFX images were nicer but this wasn't a fair comparison due to lens choices.

[@pawetura549]

Ok, but 80 1.7 GFX is not 33 1.4 APSC !!

[@jbivphotography]

It's not. it was hard to pick a matching focal length.

[@danielfulop]

not much difference from quality point of view... sure the GFX looks different, but I can't say that it's nicer than the X-T5... just different, maybe a bit more real-life-like (3D-ish)

[@jbivphotography]

That background separation on the GFX is just amazing. A softer photo filled with a bit more "feeling" in my opinion. But that X-T5 makes for a great photo.

[@danielfulop]

@@jbivphotography oh definitely, the background separation is a big difference, you're right. As for more "feeling", that's what I meant by more 3D-ish, I guess. Have you tried printing any of the photos? I'd be curious if there's that much difference when it comes to print.

[@sequoi_]

@@danielfulop You would have to print really big to start seeing the benefits of the 102MP sensor to be honest. If I print an 8x10 w/ my Fuji XT5 vs my GFX100s it's hard to see any real benefit. Once you get up to 23x36" or larger... it's a different story. Even then it might be LESS [maybe a 3-5% increase in resolution] than you're hoping for the $$$ spent. I know it was for me. The real benefit of the 102MP sensor is crop-ability. I can make 4-5 images out of a 35mm equivalent [45mm on GFX] shot w/ most of them coming out between 25-50MP.

[@danielfulop]

@@sequoi_ Yeah, makes sense. There is something about its quality (rendering?) tho. Even on instagram, usually I can tell if the photo was shot on a GFX. Mainly if it's a portrait, cause the skin details are very obvious. I'd have to use a GFX myself to be able to tell if it's a good thing or not. If money didn't matter, I'd definitely get one :))

[@Iamgeoffw]

Loved it!

[@piotr.czechowski]

"omg its so tight" ... 👀

[@jbivphotography]

😅😅😅

[@v_stands_for_value124]

I don't need much in life, Canon R3 for fast stuff, GFX for bonkers quality and some expensive toy like an X-E2s to feel like a film photographer even tho I'm broke lol

[@raymondludlow5970]

GFX images looked soo much nicer creamier, smoother

[@ihateunicorns867]

Wow. Night and day difference. The X-T5 seems like a toy camera in comparison.

[@malonephotography]

John Branch means EPIC！🎉

[@jbivphotography]

Thanks a bunch! Hope you enjoyed it.

[@deepdas7168]

True

[@jamesspicewilliams8835]

GFX is the clear winner. The subject separation was clear relative to the XT. I think my point would be more evident if you had better lighting conditions. Fujifilm fans who are tired of that cropped sensor look would appreciate this kind of video. Keep making them.

[@Yupthereitism]

I preferred the xt5 images

[@salpatalano2306]

For the life of me I can’t figure out the comparison…..why would I compare a Ferrari with ??? A 4 cylinder watchamacallit?? And oh, by th way let’s only use 3 of the Ferrari’s cylinders…..I guess you could compare a toaster and a impact drill but what would the result be?? I don’t get it…..aorry

[@salpatalano2306]

@@djstuc yes, I could certainly do that….

[@Yupthereitism]

@@salpatalano2306I doubt it. I think videos like this show little difference there is between medium format and apsc.

[@salpatalano2306]

@@Yupthereitism true, if you are printing 4x6 snapshots of the family dog…..no difference at all…..Try printing 24x36 images or larger, like I do, and tell me if you can see the difference….

[@Yupthereitism]

@@salpatalano2306there’s still no difference. I print large also and no one cares. It’s all in your head

[@jean-pierrecombes5325]

Whoever shot the video needs to clean up their lens