The Fujifilm GFX-50s experience

It’s only natural to compare yourself against ‘better’, whatever that means, and when it comes to photography gear, medium-format promises more than the humble DSLR’. So I’ve headed out into the landscape for a couple of days with a Fujifilm GFX-50s in one hand, and my Nikon D850 in the other, to find out if Fujifilm’s medium-format system is indeed ‘better’. Then back in the studio I’ve pushed, prodded and printed some images to see how they compare.

Fujifilm GFX-50s image
Captured with the GFX-50s (Full sized images are available at the end of the article)

Differences in the field

The GFX and D850 are actually quite different cameras which intersect right where it matters for landscape photography. Both sit at around 50 megapixels, both claim similar bag real estate, and both have the controls and functions needed for making high end photographs. The GFX costs about twice as much and is of course medium-format, with a sensor size around 70% larger than the Nikon’s full frame.

Nikon D850 left, Fujifilm GFX50s right
Left: Nikon D850 Right: Fujifilm GFX-50S

When it comes to handling, you could say they’re similar but different, and either can be adapted to quickly enough.  The GFX is a little larger and heavier most of the time depending on the lens being used.  I set out with three GFX lens’s and four DSLR primes, and both systems came to about the same weight.

In use, I found the most noticeable difference was simply between DSLR and mirrorless designs.  Alternating between an optical and electronic viewfinder shows the world in different ways, both are perfectly usable but have different advantages.  The GFX’s electronic viewfinder is large which helps with compositions, and has the advantage of histogram display and focus points which can move all the way to the edge. I usually do prefer optical viewfinders though and the way they display a scene with purity, including the fine details, so I’d be happy with either viewfinder.

The GFX like many other medium format cameras uses a 4:3 image ratio, rather than the 2:3 ratio usually seen in DSLR’s, which to my way of thinking is more pleasing and more efficient.  With DSLR’s I often feel constrained by the narrower image ratio especially when shooting vertically, so I’d like to see some ‘full-frame’ cameras follow the 4:3 ratio, it just makes more sense to me, especially since mirrorless camera’s aren’t constrained by the height of a mirror.

Print tests and early thoughts

I feel an image comes to life once printed, so to complete this comparison I made several large prints at least one meter wide and showed them to anyone who cared to look.  Prints give an opportunity to see an image as a whole, revealing the character, intricacy and flaws in context.  They also provide a chance for others to see and respond in their own way.

When I presented the prints to a group of photographers and several others without explaining why I had made them, their responses gave some perspective.  It turns out the differences I’d found with careful screen comparisons were largely overlooked when viewed in context of the whole image. Even the largest monitors can only show a portion of a full sized image at a time.

It was interesting to see how people responded to the print. Firstly, an overall impression was made, then people would look at the most obvious differences and suggest that perhaps the light had changed between captures or the blacks were a little deeper, perhaps one image was a little cooler or warmer than the other.  Usually, some areas of interest were pointed out, areas which attracted attention.  It took time for viewers to scan the remainder of the image where minor flaws and differences could be noticed, they weren’t jumping out, which tells me straight away that for many uses the differences between these two camera’s is not significant enough to matter.

There’s a lot competing for our attention in an image and we don’t need nitty gritty issues pulling our attention away from the scene, while the GFX 50s performed a little better, the difference wasn’t enough to pull the viewer from the scene in these test prints.  I have hunch the next generation of medium format bodies will increase this difference as the resolution increases.

Print comparison
A print comparison between the Fujifilm GFX-50s +23mm and Nikon D850 +20mm
Print comparison GFX50s vs D850
A print comparison between the Fujifilm GFX-50s +120mm and Nikon D850 +85mm


Given the GFX’s larger sensor, it could be expected to produce cleaner images and more detail from shadow areas. The D850 has a small advantage in it’s lower base ISO of 64 compared to 100 for the GFX, which may close the gap a little though.

Noise test scene
Original scene, four stops underexposed
Nikon D850 test underexposed
Nikon D850, four stops under exposed, exposure corrected (ISO 64)
Nikon GFX 50s underexposed
Fujifilm GFX-50s, four stops under exposed, exposure corrected (ISO 100) (Actually it was 3.7 stops, but who’s counting?)

These test shots at base ISO were used for comparison. As far as I can tell from this basic test, both cameras perform similarly with the GFX pulling a little extra detail from the shadows.

A note on processing

Adobe automatically applies lens corrections to the GFX raw files, which is not the case for Nikon DSLR files (but is becoming the norm for mirrorless).  Adobe applies these corrections by default to most raw files that contain correction data, but it’s unfortunate this is a forced correction.  To get around this you’ll need to use non-Adobe software to view the GFX files without lens corrections applied.

I was first a little stunned by the GFX’s images in Lightroom, and I wondered how two 50 megapixel images could show such a difference in micro detail.  The D850 appeared a little soft, while the GFX went the other way and appeared too crispy for my liking.  So I processed some files with Iridient developer for a second opinion and the difference was narrowed, but still in favour of the GFX.

Lens comparisons

These lens comparisons may present an incomplete and shallow view of the world but were the best I could do at the time, they’re mostly concerned with detail & image quality, without too much thought given to the aesthetics of blurs and backgrounds or anything else.

Three GFX lenses were compared with equivalents on the D850

23mm F4 R LM WR (19mm equivalent)20mm Nikkor F1.8G
32-64mm @ 32mm F4 R LM WR  (26mm equivalent)24mm Nikkor F1.8G
32-64mm @ 64mm F4 R LM WR  (53mm equivalent)50mm Sigma Art
120mm F4 R LM OIS WR Macro (98mm equivalent)85mm Sigma Art

Equivalents are taken across the frame width, which makes the GFX image a little taller at the equivalent focal length.

Wide prime

23mm F4 R LM WR (19mm equivalent) vs 20mm Nikkor F1.8G

Of the four lens comparisons, the differences here at the wide end were most noticeable.

The Fujifilm 23mm proved a great performer on the GFX, even wide open at F4 it shows strong detail into the corners, while the Nikkor 20mm shows a little softness by comparison and has a tendency towards purple fringing.  By F8 the Nikon is resolving almost as much detail but is still suffering the purple fringing at high contrast edges.

I’m not sure there’s a DSLR wide angle alternative that can match the GFX with the 23mm lens, it makes for a great landscape combination if you don’t mind the additional weight and bulk, and it accepts filters too, unlike some other wide lenses.

Wide angle lens comparison GFX 50s vs D850
Left: D850 + 20mm    Right: Fujifilm GFX-50S + 23mm.   Wide angle comparison

When downsized the GFX and D850 images look very similar, which shouldn’t be surprising given they were both processed using Adobe standard settings.  But let’s look at some high contrast edge details, near the outer frame.

Wide angle corner close up Nikon Right Fujifilm left
Left: Nikon D850 + 20mm     Right: Fujifilm GFX + 23mm   100% crops at corners

This is an extreme close up of the corners.  The Nikkor 20mm can produce purple fringing towards the edges, and while it’s normally correctable with processing, it can be severe enough to leave strange ‘scars’ if not corrected well.

These artifacts look extreme but the reality probably isn’t as bad as your imagination, in my large print samples the uncorrected fringing was barely noticed, and on most scenes the fringing isn’t this extreme. 

The 23mm lens on the GFX produces better images than the 20mm Nikon, which can be noticeable at the edges, Nikon 20mm’s fringing was a little disappointing, even if it was barely noticed by my test group.

Wide Zoom

32-64mm F4 R LM WR @ 32mm (26mm equivalent) vs 24mm Nikkor F1.8G

It seemed a little unfair to compare the GFX’s 32-64mm zoom to a prime on the D850, but my challenge was to see if the D850 could match medium format, so the Nikkor 24mm F1.8G was a reasonable candidate.

Overall the 32-64mm was well behaved and enjoyable to shoot with, it may be a ‘general purpose’ lens, but from what I can see it’s at least equal to the best full frame primes.  At F4 the GFX was marginally sharper towards the corners than Nikon’s 24mm, at F8 both hold detail well and are a near match.  Both are subject to a little purple fringing towards the edges of high contrast scenes, the 24mm perhaps more so.  The 32-64mm may be just in front for this round, but it’s surprisingly close.

Lake mtn bend
Lake mountain bend
close up lake mtn bend
Left: D850 + 24mm, Right: GFX + 32-64mm @ 32mm, F8 center of scene.

At scene center, there’s not much difference between these two, the GFX has a little more definition,  partly from the longer focal length.

Lake mtn bend close up
Left: D850 + 24mm, Right: GFX + 32-64mm @ 32mm,  F4 edge of scene

At the edges, both are prone to a little chromatic aberration, and again there’s not a lot of difference between the two, the GFX may be a touch in front.

The gap is narrowed here, and I don’t think you’ll see a meaningful difference between these camera/lens combinations.

Mid zoom

32-64mm F4 R LM WR @ 64mm (53mm equivalent) vs 50mm Sigma Art

Here again it’s a close call between the GFX’s 32-64mm and the D850 with Sigma’s 50mm Art lens attached.  At F4 the GFX does a little better towards the edges, but by F5.6 and F8 it’s almost too close to call.  I’m sure a test chart could nail the differences, but I’m not seeing much between them in the real world.  Even in terms of overall camera weight there’s little difference here.  The GFX with the zoom lens gives more versatility, while the Nikon with 50mm Art provides a wider equivalent aperture.  For most landscape shooting the GFX and zoom would be my preference for its versatility.

Balliang scene
Balliang Scene at 50mm on the D850 prime and 64mm on the GFX zoom.  I’ll spare the fine details – both performed similarly

Short telephoto

120mm F4 R LM OIS WR Macro (98mm equivalent) vs 85mm Sigma Art

The GFX at 120mm and D850 at 85mm are both well performing combinations, sharp and free of distortion.  The Nikon+Sigma is a little heavier, and the GFX +120mm a little bulkier.  I’ve been very happy with the Sigma 85mm Art in the past and have used it successfully for art reproductions which can be quite demanding, it’s strong to the edges and produces very pleasing bokeh when used for portraits too.

Unfortunately I didn’t capture the same framing here with each lens so I’m using a little judgement.  At F4 the 120mm is already sharp and the 85mm still very good, at F5.6 and F8 both are sharp across the frame.

D850 at 85mm vs GFX at 120mm
Left: D850 + 85mm Sigma Art   Right: GFX + 120mm.  F8 center of frame.  The D850 has a slight disadvantage because of the shorter focal length.

The GFX seems ahead, but again I’m surprised there isn’t a greater difference.  Perhaps more thorough testing would reveal more, I’m certainly happy with the results from either of these, and would lean towards the GFX for more technical photography where cleaner data may become noticeable.  Aside from sharpness, I found a more pleasing background blur in some scenes with the 85mm, but that could have been specific to those scenes.

Lens Conclusions

Not only is the D850 competing against the larger sensor of the GFX but also its excellent glass. When comparing the GFX with a 32-64mm zoom lens to the Nikon with prime lenses, the differences were almost negligible, but prime lenses on the GFX bring do bring an improvement over the D850, especially at the wide end. With both cameras at around 50MP, the GFX does provide more detailed images and finer micro contrast on the whole, but it’s no clean sweep, in real world shooting the differences can be hard to distinguish at times, imperfections in processing technique will easily wipe this difference away. A key point with cameras this similar is that it’s not all about the gear, quality of technique comes into play throughout the whole process and is just as critical.


The GFX autofocus received a bad rap when it was first released with inconsistent focusing (focus shift), but I found it reliable and accurate, I believe a firmware fix was released some time ago to change the focus strategy.  Even under a dark rainforest canopy with polariser attached I found no issues with focus.  That’s not to say the don’t exist, but they didn’t for me in my short time with the camera.

Electronic shutter

Beware of the electronic shutter!!  The GFX shutter can operate mechanically, electronically, or as a mixed electronic front and mechanical rear curtain.  Less mechanical vibrations mean sharper images.  The D850 can also use the mixed shutter option, which is my default setting.

The fully electronic shutter on the GFX can cause some strange effects!  So don’t leave it on ‘just in case’, it’s only useful for static subjects.  The electronic shutter takes a while move across the frame, a whole quarter second from bottom to top according to Jim Kasson’s blog, it can cause some weird sloping effects on anything moving through the scene, it’s the same effect as in the famous 1913 photo by Jacques Henri Lartigue, Le Grand Prix A.C.F.

Here’s an example:

Electronic shutter effects with moving subjects
People don’t walk like this.   The sloping shutter effect

The other GFX

There’s another GFX I haven’t mentioned yet, the GFX-50R.  The GFX-50S was originally intended as a studio camera, so when it received a huge interest from DSLR upgraders, Fujifilm answered with the 50R, the same sensor and same image quality packaged into a smaller more ruggedised body.

Personally I’m not sure this was the right answer, it’s lighter and arguably smaller, depending on which way you look at it, but it lacks a deep grip and doesn’t feel too steady in the hand.  It also uses a smaller viewfinder and has no option to mount the tilting EVF, instead it has a tilting rear LCD.  The 50R may appeal to many, but in many ways the 50S seems a better platform for landscape photography.  Hopefully the next ’50s’ could retain the best of both these models and shrink a little, just have a look at the Hasselblad X1D-50C.

Fujifilm GFX 50 double
Left: Fujifilm GFX-50R       Right GFX-50S

Hasselblad X1D-50C

It would seem incomplete to leave out the Hasselblad X1D-50C, the GFX’s main competitor.  By comparison it’s a work of art in concept and design, keeping clean, simple and small.  I’ve only had a brief opportunity to play with it so I won’t go jumping to conclusions.  Here it is next to my D850.

D850 and Hasselblad X1D
Left: Nikon D850       Right: Hasselblad X1D-50C

Final conclusions

It’s a little unfair to compare the D850 and GFX directly, they’re similar in pixel count but made for different purposes.  The D850 is well refined and made for anything.  The GFX-50S comes with medium-format ‘prestige’, it has the studio shooter in mind and wasn’t intended to be thrown in bags and carted around the world, and it’s certainly no action camera.  For the landscape photographer it’s image quality that brings these two together, but weight, robustness and function may be just as important.

In my opinion, neither camera fits the description of a perfect landscape camera on all counts. If weight is the overriding priority the latest round of full frame mirrorless cameras may be a better fit, the best of which, perhaps the Z7 or A7RIII should be capable of similar image quality to the D850 if paired with the right glass.  And it’s only a matter of time before Canon produces a worthwhile body too, they’re already producing some excellent glass, and let’s not forget what’s likely from Panasonic and Sigma.  Camera tech is changing rapidly but it’s the ‘right glass’ at the ‘right weight’ with the ‘right quality’ and the ‘right functions’ that need to come together for the perfect landscape combination (in my mind).

When it comes to image quality the D850 can come close to and at times can match the GFX depending on the lenses used.  The GFX does extract greater detail than the D850 given the chance, but whether it’s enough to make a difference in all but the most technical or well controlled applications, I’m not yet convinced.  I’m just wishing the GFX’s ‘more’ was a little bit ‘MORE’.  I’d say the next generation will see this gap widen as the medium-format sensors improve and increase in resolution, while full frame starts to push up against a wall.

Every system has its compromises and I’m more than happy to photograph with either of these two.  The differences between the GFX and the D850 can seem insignificant within the bigger picture.  We are beings of emotion, and as my large prints showed we are easily lead, we see what takes our interest and imperfections only need to remain un-noticed within that context.

In the future, perhaps in the next few years, ‘excellent gear’ will come in smaller, lighter and more convenient packages, ultimate pixel quality will be doubled, and doubled again, and the real challenges in photography will remain beyond our gear.  I’ll always welcome ‘better’ and I’m unlikely to shoot landscapes with ‘poor gear’, but for now as much as I like the GFX with it’s 3:4 aspect ratio, better data, and a zoom option that matches the quality of my primes, it’s still a little bulky and there’s just not enough difference between these two to keep me excited, especially given the price difference and what we’re likely to see within the next few years.

(Update 2020: Fujifilm released a GFX-100, with a substantial increase to 100 megapixels I’m told it blows the GFX-50s away, I’m yet to test it.)

More reference images

Wide prime

23mm F4 R LM WR (19mm equivalent) vs 20mm Nikkor F1.8G

Here’s another wide angle image…

Nissan hut scene
Nissan Hut scene as captured with the GFX
 gfx50s 23mm_lower_d850 20mm_top
Center of scene  F8.   Top:  D850 + 20mm     Bottom: GFX + 23mm.

Both look pretty close in the center, how about the corners…

D850 top GFX bottom
Top:  D850 + 20mm     Bottom: GFX + 23mm.   Corner of scene, F8

Again, in the corners the GFX is resolving more cleanly than Nikon, and the Nikon is showing some purple fringing.  It’s the 23mm on the GFX which produces the better images at this focal length.

Full size image samples

These images may be download for full size inspection. Click the image then save the expanded version.

Fujifilm GFX 50-S image
Full size available.
GFX 50s Hut 120mm
GFX 50s Hut @ 120mm
Hut D850 85mm Sigma Art
D850 hut 85mm Sigma Art
GFX 50s 23mm focus stack
Forest scene full size: GFX 50s, 23mm focus stack
D850 20mm focus stack
Forest scene full size: D850, 20mm focus stack
John Hardiman