The Fujifilm GFX 50s II vs GFX 100s | Which Is Best For You?

For the photographer looking to graduate into digital medium-format imagery, these two cameras—the GFX 50s II and GFX 100s—are the first two worth considering. However, they differ in application from their $2,000 price gap, which may lead you to believe. They share identical bodies, and if it weren't for the subtle branding on the 50s II, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Let me take this one step further; you could look at two images from these respective cameras and likely not tell the difference. With that said, how do you choose? How would you decide which of these two cameras would be the right upgrade for your work?

I've been shooting on the GFX system in some capacity over the last four years, and this year, I moved my professional work entirely to this GFX 100S. Shortly after this move, I got ample time to the 50s II, which was convenient as it allowed me to formulate a more prosperous opinion on how they stack up against each other. The decision on which of these cameras you should get ultimately comes down to the speed of your work over your patience. That is to say, the slower your subject matter is and the more patient you are as a creator, the more likely it is that the GFX 50s II is a better investment for your work. Conversely, if you shoot dynamically and your patience is closer to a prepubescent child's, the GFX 100s will make for a better creative tool.

Key Differences

The GFX 50s II captures images at a smidge over 50 megapixels. The 100s capture them at 102 megapixels, but because of the different techniques of these sensors, the dynamic range and noise performance are remarkably similar. The 100s has the unique ability to shoot 16-bit RAW files compared to 14-bit files on the 50s II, and this may be important, so I'll revisit this later in the article. While both sensors share the same size and dimensions, the 50s II has a half-stop more stabilization than its bigger brother at 6.5 stops, but this may not be enough to tip scales meaningfully.

On top of the same physical body, it's nice that these cameras share the same 3.69M dot OLED viewfinder and 3.2" LCD, although I wish the LCD had a bit more resolution. And importantly, both cameras share the same 19 film simulations and color modes, which is great for users.

Where the cameras diverge in speed and video, the GFX 100s have back-side illuminated sensors with phase-detect autofocus. In contrast, the 50s II is not a BSI sensor and sticks to a contrast-based focusing system. First, this translates to the 100s being much quicker to focus, especially in lower-light situations. Second, it likewise means that it can record up to 4K30P with RAW video output and many other video features, whereas the 50s II can shoot no further than 1080P. I don't see either of these options as optimal for video work. It's a have even in the 100s, but most people prefer their photography capabilities.

One last difference, and maybe the deciding factor for some, the Fujifilm GFX 50s II comes in at $4,000, a total of $2,000 less than the GFX 100s, which means that you can get a body and a lens for less than a 100s body. That speaks volumes to many creatives.

Choosing the GFX 100s

Why would you take one over the other? Let's look at the GFX 100s first — this camera has the same physical size sensor as the 50s II. Although it produces twice the resolution, it maintains the same ISO and dynamic range as the 50s II because of the BSI technology. Lower-resolution sensors have better light-gathering ability than higher-resolution sensors in a like-for-like technology situation. Nevertheless, the 50s II has a four-year-old sensor that doesn't employ the advancements of back-side illumination.

On top of this, the phase-detect autofocus system is noticeably faster, especially when you opt in to using features like face and eye detection. The technology in the 100s works as well as it does in something like the Fujifilm X-T4, where it's reliable in most situations even though it may lag behind other brands in the camera space, like Canon and Sony. Remember, this is still a massive, medium-format sensor that's 70% larger than full-frame, so performance is still phenomenal against the field.

The GFX 100s can capture 16-bit raw files, meaning it has considerably more color information per channel than the 50s II. The thing to keep in mind here is that anything beyond 10-bit is pretty much unnoticeable to us by default. However, when you process your files, shift colors, and adjust curves, you stretch and compress these color channels, making the difference between them more noticeable. So, in simpler terms, the GFX 100s gives you a higher ceiling to play with your colors in post-production and push your creative vision. Between the two, this is the camera to get if you shoot quickly, hope to shoot in changing environments, and further proof your photography. And sure, let's include medium-format videography as well.

What the GFX 100s does is open up the bandwidth, this widening, if you will, for your creativity. Suppose you're more of a maximizer than a satisfier regarding the tools you use. In that case, you'll gravitate to this camera because it gives you noticeably better performance that you may take advantage of through your creative journey. That said, if you know what you plan to create, you might conclude that the GFX 50s II is enough for your work.

Choosing the GFX 50s II

This camera lacks speed, though resolution makes up for value. You have a camera here that can produce vibrant files, access incredible GF glass, and give you that medium-format look ALL THE WHILE, saving you at least $2,000! That's a lot. For instance, one can buy the 50s II, a lens, and a worldwide plane ticket for the price of a GFX 100s. That's highly attractive if what you capture often finds itself in reliable light and doesn't move around.

Don't get me wrong, you can capture people and portraits with no problem, but if your subject shifts rapidly, you'll have to switch to manual focus and develop that muscle. It's not impossible, but it demands practice. Now, if you move to landscapes, architecture, products, macro, and even astrophotography, the 50s II can be plenty and help you get into creating much sooner. It's easy to default to the "better" option, but you have to be willing to ask, better for whom? Don't blindly follow the spec sheet and file sizes. If you look at what you shoot, you may find yourself in a place where the GFX 50s II is more than enough of a camera for your creative work.

Final Thoughts

With the GFX 100s and 50s II, Fujifilm has two formidable offerings for those looking to dive into medium-format digital imagery. These tools work exceptionally well and can elevate your work as long as you match the specs with your creative vision. Choosing between them is honestly asking more about you and your work than these cameras can do. I've hammered this point a lot across my articles and videos, but I'm going to repeat it: look at what you create, where you do it, and how often in a critical way, and you'll know exactly which of these two cameras is suitable for your journey.