First Fujifilm GFX vs Sony a7RIII vs Nikon D850 vs Canon 5D Mark IV Comparison


The comparison between the Fujifilm GFX vs Sony a7RIII vs Nikon D850 vs Canon 5D Mark IV was inevitable and while the results are very interesting they could have been a little more clinical. imaging-resource put this comparison together and they tried to match the four systems as closely as they could but used some slightly different settings that might have advantaged some systems and disadvantaged others. I compiled a list of the equipment used.

  • Fujifilm GFX – GF 63mm f/2.8 R WR
  • Sony a7RIII – FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS (Impressive results from the new lens)
  • Nikon D850 – Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 E VR
  • Canon 5D Mark IV – Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II

You can view the full photos for each camera from the following links and the settings for each

While these photos were taken on a tripod shooting the GFX at 1/20th and depending on AF compared to the a7RIII does put it at a disadvantage. Sony’s eye AF is world class and I am unsure how skilled the photographers were with the GFX because I know the 63mm can get better results than this. I also wish this test was performed without contacts because the pattern being captured is less impressive than iris detail. Sony also enjoys an advantage here because their auto white balance has been tweaked quite a bit since the Sony a9 and original a7RII came out. I can’t wait to see how the a7RIII compares to the GFX for dynamic range and I am sure photons on photos will be first to release the results. I will actually have access to all of these cameras except the Canon when the a7RIII launches because we use the cameras we write about.

Join our Fujifilm GFX Owners Group which is growing rapidly, also follow the Fujifilm GFX Page to get more tailored news on Facebook and follow Fujiaddict on Facebook and Twitter.

Fujifilm GFX 50S: B&H Photo / Amazon / Adorama
Sony a7RIII: B&H PhotoAmazonAdorama
Nikon D850: B&H Photo / Amazon / Adorama
Canon 5D Mark IV: B&H Photo / Amazon / Adorama

This entry was posted in Fujifilm GFX, Fujifilm GFX 50S. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Fujica

    The only thing this shows is that an X-T2s will just NOT be enough to keep Fujifilm alive for long enough to keep growing. Fujifilm needs to do more then a mediocre update to a X-T2.

    I think Fujifilm needs a FF camera in their line-up SOONER then later.

    • That’s simply not true… The a7RIII is over twice the price of the X-T2. They aren’t even close to the same price point, plus Sony optics are obscenely expensive. Fujifilm is well positioned.

      • Neopulse

        One of the reasons I left Sony, the obscene prices. I will miss it though.

      • Fujica

        Yes twice the price, now look at the GFX, that’s more then 4 times the price. And by looking at the price of the optics for the GFX they are obscene as well.

        There is just nothing in between to choose from in the Fujifilm lineup.

        APS-C is just running at the end of its capabilities.
        So is FF, but then at twice the resolution.

        • And there you have the problem… Smaller sensors are pretty much maxed out and people have their allegiances. The recent a7RIII preliminary results pretty much prove that Full Frame isn’t going to catch medium format anytime soon and we know 100MP BSI medium format sensors are coming possibly with phase detect pixels on chip. This will be a leap over the current gen similar to the a7RII over Full Frame at the time. Why invest in a format that has reached it’s maximum potential?

          It makes more sense for Fujifilm to dominate medium format and to push it towards other mirrorless levels of performance so when others try to enter the market they have it cornered like Canon/Nikon.

          Further Full Frame and APS-C are remarkably similar in performance under many conditions today with APS-C having a few advantages. Fujifilm has a real chance of winning the professional APS-C battle. It would be far better to own APS-C and Medium format to put the squeeze on Full Frame.

  • Lars Steenhoff

    The best way to test different camera’s is to use the exact same lens.
    And use adapters without glass to make it fit on each camera.

    It should be a lens with a large image circle for example an Zeiss Otus lens, or a high end medium format lens.

    as soon as you use a different lens the comparison becomes also about the lens not just the camera.

    Second for the raw processing the same settings should also be used, a jpg comparison is also more about the camera’s jpg rendering that it is about the camera’s total capabilities.

    • The Addict sites and affiliated sites will have the three cameras worth owning from the test… and we discussed using an Otus to test them with RAW files. I am not a fan of JPEG and everything that comes with it… Realistically this is a flawed test, but it is the first one and it can be hard to pull that off due to restricted access.

      Lots of sites are covering this in less detail just for the clicks, but I hoped to start a discussion. There is one happening the the GFX group at the moment, but it’s better here. The other cameras also have IBS or OIS helping them out at 1/30 and the GFX at 1/20 has nothing… There are lots of little issues here worth picking apart.

      • Tadao_Isogai

        “… test them with RAW files”

        [Hopefully, for me, at least], processed using manufacturer’s software?

  • saywhatuwill

    Why zoom lenses? Many of the cameras can use a common lens through adapters.

  • Wild Treck

    I always look for how accurate the hairs are and especially the pattern fill in between the hairs if any. It probably would have been best to throw in a Nikon D810, a Pentax K-1 and even a Nikon D750 for comparison to see if there really is so much better acclaimed image quality with newer tech.